TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a case for holding that it attracts the Explanation appended to s. 271(1)(c) ibid for levying the penalty. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. - HON'BLE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ. For the Appellant : R.L. Jain and V. Mandlik, Advs. For the Respondent : Vijay Asudani, Adv. ORDER Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue (CIT) under s. 260A of the IT Act against the order dt. 27th Nov., 2002, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 130/Ind/1997. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O imposing the penalty held in para 5: We have considered the arguments of the parties in view of the material available on record and have gone through the judgments relied upon by them as well as the order impugned. An identical issue was raised during the asst. yr. 1991-92 wherein vide para 4 of the order the Tribunal has confirmed the actions of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty. Contents of para 4 of the order of the Tribunal on the issue are reproduced hereunder: 'We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representatives of the parties. It is now well established that the assessment and the penalty proceedings are independent of each other and the imposition of the penalty does not automatically follow as a matter of cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or cancelling the penalty levied with reference to the offer of additional income of Rs. 25 lacs. Nothing has been pointed out by the Revenue that there was any flaw in the order of the CIT(A). It may be stated that similar penalty of Rs. 15,50,000 was imposed by the AO for the asst. yr. 1987-88 which was cancelled by the CIT(A) vide his order dt. 22nd March, 1994. When the matter was taken by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide their decision rendered on 28th June, 1998 held that the CIT(A) was perfectly justified in cancelling the said penalty. Observing inter alia that in the absence of any evidence brought on record by the Revenue that the amount offered was concealed income of the assessee, the penalty for concealment is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
