2011 (1) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty, in contradiction of its own order dated 30.11.2007 confirming the additions on which penalty was levied?" 2. The respondent assessee had filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring business loss of Rs.53,43,024/-. The Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the Act on 30.11.2005 determining total income at Rs.56,23,600/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses claimed under different heads and did not allow set off on the current year's business loss as well as unabsorbed depreciation loss against the income from House Property and income from other sources. As there was no business income for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly urged that in the face of the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty.   5. A perusal of the penalty order made by the Assessing Officer shows that in the entire order, there is not a single finding as to what are the inaccurate particulars that have been furnished and what is the nature of the concealment made by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed each and every item separately and has held that the claiming the deduction amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal in the impugned order has found that in respect of the first item, in the quantum proceedings, the same has been deleted. As regards the other disallowances, the Tri....