TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel for the revenue in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. No question of law arises in this appeal. - ITA-362-2018 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-3-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting penalty of ₹ 31,76,819/- of AY 2006-07 without appreciating the facts? 3. A few essential facts in ITA-362-2018 as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 declaring the income at ₹ 95,750/-. The assessee had purchased land in partnership with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the CIT(A) ]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 24.2.2014 (Annexure A-II) dismissed the said appeal. Consequentially, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.3.2015 (Annexure A-III) levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, i.e. ₹ 31,76,819/- for the assessment year 2006-07. Against the quantum order, Annexure A-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 13.4.2017 (Annexure A-IV) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure A-VI) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals by the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
