9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Part-III, the reasons for our decision. I 2. The contentions of the Ld. counsel follow the written submission filed by the applicant before the Tribunal, which was received on 20.02.2018. Therefore, we refer below the said written submission. It is stated that the said appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed on the legal grounds as well as on merits without affording an opportunity to the applicant to make its arguments on merits. It is further stated that the Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal has considered certain case laws which were never brought to the notice of the applicant during the course of hearing and therefore, the applicant did not get any opportunity to make its submission and distinguish the same. Also it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, further, to support its contentions relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Samson Perincherry [ITXA No.: 1154 of 2014]. Also it is stated that during the course of hearing, the Bench stated that the appeal would be disposed off on the basis of additional ground only and therefore, the applicant was under impression that the appeal would be decided applying the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Samson Perincherry (supra). Further it is stated that in the order dated 30.11.2017, the Bench has proceeded to decide the case on merits without giving an opportunity to the applicant to make its submission. Thus it is stated by the applicant that the action of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In the penalty order dated 25.09.2013, the AO has levied penalty on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The applicant has mentioned in his written submission that in the penalty order dated 25.09.2013 passed u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was actually levied on account of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of income. To clarify the above issue, we extract below para 5 of the penalty order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the AO and the same is as under: "5. In view of the above facts, it is clearly established that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on assessee for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leadin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as dismissed by us. 4.1 Then we come to the other grievance for the applicant that the appeal was decided by the Bench on merits without giving an opportunity to the applicant to make its submission and the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal has considered certain case laws which were never brought to its notice during the course of hearing. We mention here that during the course of hearing on 27.09.2017, the Ld. counsel of the assessee had also argued on merits of the case and referred to page 5 and 18 of the Paper Book (P/B) filed by him. Page 5 of P/B refers to the reply submitted by the assessee before the AO containing inter alia (i) Copy of resolution passed by Board of Directors of TIL. (PAN No. AAACL3305J), (ii) Share application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose types of defences under the explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty." It may be mentioned here that the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the decision in Mak Data (supra) at page 6 and 7 of her order dated 23.12.2014. We have stated at para 10 of the impugned order that the Ld. DR relied heavily on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has appealed against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A). We have referred to the relevant para 8 of Mak Data (supra), while arriving at a findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l [2004] 267 ITR 601 (Raj) (HC), CIT v. Devilal Soni [2004] 271 ITR 566 (Raj) (HC), Jainarain Jeevraj v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 358 (Raj.) (HC), Prajatantra Prachar Samiti v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 160 (Orissa) (HC), CIT v. Jagabandhu Roul [1984] 145 ITR 153 (Orissa) (HC), CIT & Anr. v. ITAT & Anr. [1992] 196 ITR 640 (Orissa) (HC), Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. ITAT & Others [1999] 240 ITR 579 (Cal) (HC), CIT v. Suman Tea & Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 34 (Cal) (HC), ITO v. ITAT & Anr. [1998] 229 ITR 651 (Pat.) (HC), CIT & Anr. v. ITAT & Anr. [1994] 206 ITR 126 (AP) (HC), ACIT v. C. N. Ananthram [2004] 266 ITR 470 (Kar) (HC). 4.3 In the case of Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (supra), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
