TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act hereinafter) at Rs. 10,00,000 as under :- "1.The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 levied under section 221(1) of the Act." 4. The facts in brief are that the return in the instant case was furnished under section 158BC of the Act on 11-3-1996 declaring an undisclosed income of Rs. 2,84,28,437 resulting in self-assessment tax of Rs. 1,96,15,621, which stood unpaid. Block assessment was completed on 30-11-1996 at an undisclosed income of Rs. 3,28,48,900. Notice under section 221(1) of the Act was issued on 12-7-1996 requiring the assessee as to why penalty under the said section be not levied for the default in payment of self assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were raised before the ld. CIT(A), who, though in agreement with the Assessing Officer with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 140A to a return filed under section 158BC (in view of section 158BH of the Act), differed from him on the question of levy of penalty, as in his view : (a) no new show cause notice, i.e., after the initial one dated 12-7-1996, consequent to the filing of the revised return by the assessee on 21-11-1996, stood issued; the self-assessment tax liability (after adjustment of the seized cash of Rs. 1.90 lakhs) having reduced to Rs. 1,77,24,464 (from Rs. 1,94,25,621); (b) the conduct of the assessee revealed its bona fide intention inasmuch as it paid the tax in terms of its agreement with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rused the material on record. We find force in the arguments of the ld. DR inasmuch as no prejudice has been caused to the assessee by the non-issue of a fresh show cause notice; its admitted self-assessment tax liability having only scaled down a few notches i.e., from Rs. 194.25 lakhs to Rs. 177.25 lakhs as a result of the revised return, so that its case of the attendant accentuating circumstances that prevented it from making the payment in one go, remain the same. Also, we find the second contention of the ld. DR to be correct on facts inasmuch as there was no such 'agreement' between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, and which, nevertheless would still render the assessee as in default. However, we, for the reasons stated hereun....