2013 (7) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al relates to Assessment Year 1992-93. 3. The Revenue has raised the following question of law for consideration of this Court:    Whether the ITAT is right in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and in canceling the penalty of Rs.53,05,857/u/ s. 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the assessee concealing particulars of income and despite the ITAT's order (against quantum assessment) deleting the addition made on account of capital gains u/s. 45 (4) of the Income Tax Act, being appealed before this Court being contrary to the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v/s. A. N. Naik Associates 265 ITR 346 (Bom), and with to ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in CGT v/s. Chhotela....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, 2006, the CIT(A) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and held that no penalty is imposable upon the respondent assessee. This was on the ground that for the Assessment Year 1992-93, the Tribunal had by its order dated 26 October, 2006 allowed the claim of the respondent assessee on merits. Moreover, the CIT(A) held that the penalty has been imposed merely on account of a different interpretation being given to the provisions by the revenue from that given by the respondent assessee. In these circumstances also, the CIT(A) held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act was imposable upon the respondent assessee. 7. The Revenue carried the matter in the Appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 27 F....