TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax to allow imposing penalty -- HELD THAT:- We see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court on merits on the powers of the Additional Commissioner to grant the approval sought by the AO for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. What was assailed by the Revenue was the penalty Imposed and not the penalty reduced by the CIT(A). Before the Tribunal, both the Revenue, as well as the assessee, preferred the appeals and the entire penalty amounting to ₹ 29,02,743/was an issue before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. The subsequent reduction in penalty in view of the subsequent order cannot oust the jurisdiction. What is required to be considered is wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent appeal. 2. It is mainly submitted on behalf of the appellant that in view of the CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 the appeal preferred by the Revenue was not maintainable. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that in view of the aforesaid circular no appeal can be filed by the Department in any High Court, for nonpayment of taxes, where the tax effect is less than ₹ 20,00,000/. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that in view of the order passed by the CIT(A) and in view of the subsequent demand, the penalty amount was reduced to ₹ 6,00,000/(approximately) and therefore when the tax effect would be less than ₹ 20,00,000/, in view of the CBDT Circular dated 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). Before the Tribunal, both the Revenue, as well as the assessee, preferred the appeals and the entire penalty amounting to ₹ 29,02,743/was an issue before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. The subsequent reduction in penalty in view of the subsequent order cannot oust the jurisdiction. What is required to be considered is what was under challenge before the Tribunal as well as the High Court. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that what was challenged by the Revenue was the penalty amounting to ₹ 29,02,743/and not the subsequent reduction of penalty by the CIT(A). The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with by the High Court in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment and order. We are in complete agreement wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
