2013 (7) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....okani) Following is the question raised for our consideration by the Revenue in this Tax Appeal, preferred under section 260A of the Incometax Act, 1961 {"Act" for short}, being aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {"Tribunal" for short} dated 20th July 2012. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 12,63,208/= l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty proceedings under Section 271 [1](c) of the Act and an amount of Rs. 12,63,208/= had been levied as penalty after bipartite hearing. The assessee, aggrieved by such an order of penalty when challenged the same before the CIT [A], by an elaborate order discussing various case laws, CIT {A} deleted such amount of penalty by holding in terms that there was neither any concealment nor the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 271 [1](c) of the Act, came to be deleted by the CIT [A] and Tribunal both. In our opinion, CIT [A] and the Tribunal both have properly examined the issue and have rightly deleted the penalty. Merely because certain claims were made and those claims were disallowed on the basis thereof additions were made, that would not ipso facto lead to penalty proceedings. When both the authorities concu....