2019 (2) TMI 1056

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alty u/s. 271(1)(c) fails, as the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is levied with reference to the tax sought to be evaded, which is the difference between the income returned and that assessed by the A.O. In this case, since the assessed income and the returned income are the same, the machinery provision of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) fails. In this regard, we draw support in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeals by the assessee against the respective orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai ( ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 25.01.2017 and pertains to the assessment years (A.Y.) 2009-10 to 2011-12, sustaining the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short). 2. In this case, the ld. CIT(A) has sustained following penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd perused the records. We find that the assessment in this case has been completed on the returned income. Hence, when the return of income and the assessed income are same, the machinery provision for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) fails, as the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is levied with reference to the tax sought to be evaded, which is the difference between the income returned and that assessed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X