2016 (8) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... preferred by the assessee. 2) While admitting the matter on 24.04.2012, the following substantial question of law was framed by the Court for consideration :- "Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting penalty of Rs. 23,42,010/- imposed under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the appellate Commissioner by totally overlooking the fact that the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) of the Act were established and was also referred by the Assessing Officer." 3) The facts of the case are as under :- The assessee filed the return of income on 30.12.2004 for the Assessment Year : 2004-2005 and claimed the status of a non-resident Indian. The return was processe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), wherein the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was preferred, whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty. 4) Learned Counsel for the appellant - Department has taken us to the findings of the CIT (Appeals), Tribunal and has submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of income and the assessee also furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is further submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has extensively considered the matter and confirmed the said finding of the Assessing Officer by a we....