2014 (12) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... question, stated to be a substantial question of law :-               "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the decision of CIT (A) partly deleting the penalty levied against the assessee u/s. 271[1])(c) of the I.T Act ?" 2. Since, both the appeals arise out of a common order of the Tribunal and the facts as well as the parties are also common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The assessment years are 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. In case of the respondentassessee, the assessment for assessment year 2003-04 was made under section 143 (3) of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....articulars of income. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty imposed upon the assessee by ignoring the fact that the disallowances under section 80IB (10) of the Act had been made by the Assessing Officer after discussing various aspects. It was submitted that the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the assessee had intentionally claimed ineligible deductions under section 80IB (10) of the Act by obtaining revised approval of the local authority. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the deletion of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and that the appeals deserve consideration and are required to be admitted on the question, as proposed o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely because the assessee had not responded to the show cause notice, he has thought it fit to levy penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 6. As can be seen from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), he has recorded that this is not a case wherein income had been concealed by the assessee. Moreover, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has not made any proper examination or evaluation of the facts which is required under the law and that the statements have been lifted from the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that in the appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted several factual points which have not been discussed at all by the Assessing Officer. The....