2009 (11) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ller. For the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee filed the income-tax return on 25-12-2000, declaring his income as Rs. 31,49,444. Vide order dated 26-2-2003, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act at net taxable income of Rs. 31,53,943. Subsequently, vide order dated 30-3-2005, the Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Ludhiana, cancelled the assessment, while exercising the powers under section 263 of the Act, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to re-frame the assessment after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thereupon, vide order dated 2-3-2006, the fresh assessment was completed at net taxable income of Rs. 92,76,557, after making addition of Rs. 57,74,8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere is no justification in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Nihalchand Badrilal ( 135 ITR 519) (MP) and Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P.) Ltd. (116 ITR 416) (Cal.). Even otherwise, when the assessment is made on estimate basis, some error of judgment cannot be ruled out, therefore, penalty should not be imposed. For this proposition, we are fortified by the decision from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT (258 ITR 85), CIT v. Rawail Singh & Co. (254 ITR 191), CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills (256 ITR 447) (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Metal Products of India (150 ITR 714) and Vishwakarma Inds. v. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of double jeopardy in respect of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, considering the fact that the payment of tax and penalty are under the different provisions of the Act? (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in holding that there was no definite findings of conceal-ment considering the fact that additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted investments were confirmed by Appellate Authorities and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income during the course of assessment proceedings? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue argued that in the....