TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal dated 26.06.2002 for the assessment year 1982-83. The questions of law sought to be answered by the order of this Court dated 19.07.2007 read as under: "i Whether the order of the ITAT, upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1) (c) to the extent mentioned therein, is not vitiated in law by non-consideration of material and information that was available on record as also the applicability of relevant provisions of law? ii. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified, on the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that; (a) full facts relating to the claims made by the assessee had been disclosed; (b) no inaccuracy or falsity in such claims was attributable to the assessee; and (c) bonafide of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y refund, depreciation allowance etc. etc." The assessment so made was subject-matter of appeal firstly before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi and then before the ITAT, New Delhi. After giving effect to the order of ITAT dated 1.1.1990, the income was finally determined at Rs. 1,65,82,800/- which fact by itself is a pointer to the wild variation between the income assesseed and income determined from the stage of ITAT. Even the income so determined has not attained finality as cross references have been allowed under Section 256(1)/256(2) of the Income Tax Act and the matters are pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. After the order passed by the ITAT in the quantum proceedings became available, the penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances of which had been made the basis of levying penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act in terms of order dated 04.10.1990 had actually been incurred and no falsity or inaccuracy as such could be attributed to the assessee's claim. It was further held by the first appellate authority that the explanation-1 to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act was basically a deeming provision and the same could not have been read in isolation with the main penal provision. It was only after such findings, he cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.1993 as passed by the first appellate authority, the revenue preferred a second appeal before the ITAT. During the course of hearing of appeal filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. Learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the CIT, which records as hereunder:- "Similarly, item no.9 to 15 were provided with a disallowance by the Assessing Officer as mentioned in the preceding para. On going through the explanation I find that the expenditure related to all the 15 items mentioned above were really incurred by the appellant and there is no falsity or inaccuracy under consideration. The appellant company filed all the particulars regarding claims and these particulars are correct and accurate." The Tribunal while dealing with these items has not in any manner whatsoever disputed this finding of fact. The second objection made by learned Counsel for the depa....