2014 (5) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should be restored on the file of this Court. Ordered accordingly. CM APPL.4649/2014 is allowed. ITA 36/2002 Issue notice. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent. The following question of law arises for consideration: - "Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee's case was not covered under the amnesty scheme of 1986 and hence penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable particularly when the Tribunal while dealing with assessee's appeal in respect of assessment year 1983-84 against penalty under section 273(2)(a) of the Act had held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme?" The brief facts are that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the said scheme and it has not been stated by either of the authorities below that assessee has not fulfilled any of the conditions for grant of amnesty. However, when amnesty is applicable to the proceedings u/s 147 (a) or cases pending in appeals, therefore, in my considered view assessee is also entitled to the benefit of the said scheme. While accepting the appeal of the assessee I delete the penalty as imposed by AO and to the extent confirmed by Ld. CIT (A)." In respect of the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c), however, by the impugned order, the assessee's claim was rejected. The relevant findings of the ITAT in this regard are: - "11. Now the second question that falls for our consideration is that if the revised return was filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in clear error of law inasmuch as it has resulted in inconsistent views in regard to the same subject matter. The Revenue urges that having regard to the conspectus of circumstances, this was a clear case where assessee had made wrongful claim, persisted in its reply to the query and reiterated its earlier submissions as late as 27.2.1987. It was urged that the surrender was made when virtually the writing on the wall was seen, after issuance of notice dated 6.3.1987. This clearly indicated detection of wrongful claims and, therefore, benefit of the Circular to escape penalty could not have been availed of. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. It is evident from the above dis....