9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is a delay of 24 days in filing and delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal. 3. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue says, that the period of delay, both in filing and re-filing is short. 4. Accordingly, the delay in the above-captioned applications is condoned. 5. The above-captioned applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 291/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appeal seeks to lay challenge to the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"]. 8. The facts emerging from the record, which are necessary for adjudicating the appeal are the following. 9. On 28.09.2012, the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The reason given by the AO for this was, that even though trade payables qua two entities were shown as outstanding for more than three years, no legal proceedings had been initiated. The AO, thus, took recourse to the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] and added Rs. 3,02,436/- which was payable by the said entities, on the ground that there was cessation/remission of liability. 12. It is on account of the aforementioned additions i.e., the surrender of loss by the respondent/assessee and the addition made towards trade payables which were outstanding for more than three years, that the AO was propelled to trigger penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The net result was that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the Assessee. Operative part of the judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is reproduced below:- "2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises, in this appeal for determination by this Court, the appeal is accordingly dismissed." [Emphasis is ours] 17. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, in fact, confirmed the view of the Karnataka High Court in said matter, which in turn had relied upon the judgment of its own Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565. 18. Furthermore, the Tribunal also noted the coordinate bench judgement of this Court in PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.). 19. We may note, that even the assessment order dated 14.03.2015, whereby penalty proceedings were triggered, did not indicate as to which lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
