9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee holding that the additions made are intangible and it would be improper to impose any penalty on an addition of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponse to the above notice. Finally, the assessee was assessed at Rs. 3,34,056 pertaining to the cash credits. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given partial relief by sustaining the additions of Rs. 2,54,018. The same was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. 4. Later on, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were confirmed in the quantum proceeding which is quite different from the penalty proceeding as both are independent proceedings as per the ratio laid down in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Cal). 6. In the instant case, the assessee was confined to jail in MISA. Unconcerned with the additions which were finally sustained in quantum proceeding, the assessee has give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
