9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication as per the relevant Paras extracted as follows: "04. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide instant order dt.27/03/2019 has allowed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground and deleted the penalty of Rs. 39,77,580/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that: "That taking guidance from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (supra)wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has considered the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra, the legal proposition that comes out and which is binding in nature is that the Assessing Officer should be clear as to which of the two limbs under which penalty is imposable, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the Ld. DR could not bring out a case through their Miscellaneous Application which can be stated within the purview "mistake apparent from record" in the order of the Tribunal. That what the Revenue essentially wants to is re-argue the matter seeking, therefore, before the Tribunal to review its decision which is not permissible within the realm of the Miscellaneous Application filed u/s.254(2) of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT-II (supra.) on which the Ld. DR has placed reliance, the Ld. AR submitted that in the order of the Tribunal, they have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arge is vague and therefore, levy of penalty is not warranted. Taking totality of facts and legal scenario into consideration, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty from the hands of the assessee. 22. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1853/PUN/2016 is allowed." 4. The Ld. AR further submitted referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT-II (supra.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein has not discussed the issue of natural justice and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Revenue is not appropriate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2009-10 and the relevant Paras are extracted as follows: "4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The present Miscellaneous Application is against the order of Tribunal dated 31.01.2017, where the issue of levy of penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act was decided in turn, relying on earlier decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1201 to 1205/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 30.11.2016. The perusal of said order would reflect that the issue was decided after taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra) and also taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mak Data Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
