2013 (11) TMI 840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 'Tribunal'). The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 7.5.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and refund the amount of penalty, if any collected? 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's request contained in its letter dated 24.3.1992 for non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d shares in the assessee company as gifts said to have been received by them. The confirmatory letters were scrutinized and a number of defects regarding the new loans and shareholders, were found in them. As the assessment was getting barred by limitation and the assessee was unable to produce the necessary documentary evidence, vis-a-vis, the capacity of the shareholders and the depositors to the full extent in order to buy peace and to avoid litigation, by the letter dated 24.3.1992, the assessee filed a revised return and surrendered the share capital to the extent of Rs. 8,62,000/- and unsecured loans of Rs. 3,61,100/-. Depreciation amounting to Rs. 24,62,390/- was also claimed. Thus, a net loss of Rs. 13,87,540/- was shown in the revi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ves an impression that the revised return was filed after entering into some kind of agreement with the AO, therefore, there is no question of any concealment of income or particulars on the part of appellant-assessee, for which penalty could be levied. Moreover, in view of Delhi High Court judgment reported in 240 ITR 880 merely because the appellant-assessee was unable to produce creditors and the shareholders and the amount was surrendered, the penalty of concealment cannot be sustained. In view of the facts and circumstances and the case law, we direct the AO to delete the penalty and refund the amount of penalty if collected any." We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri S.K. Garg, le....