9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the assessee in this Appeal. With his assistance, we have perused the order under Appeal. That imposes penalty on the appellant/assessee and Mr.Kanade would submit that even if the rigors of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 permitted imposition of penalty, yet, that legal provision itself enables deletion of penalty by a higher forum. If there were no malafides and the error of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added back. Further, from the computation of income, the assessee added back certain inadmissible expenditure. However, he excluded the amount of income tax paid to the extent of Rs. 48,90,114/-. Thus, the addition was only partial and not full. Unless and until the legal provision then in force permitted exclusion of the amount of income tax already paid, the Chartered Accountant could not have d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the circumstances, the penalty was rightly imposed. 3 Such a view of the Tribunal can never be termed as perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is a possible view and could have been taken in the given facts and circumstances. That does not result into substantial question of law. The Appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed, but without any order as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
