TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he only question proposed by the Revenue as substantial question of law appears at page 7, para 5(A). It reads thus: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable ITAT was correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to additions on account of interest on FDRs with Dena Bank and TDR sale receipts when the said incomes were de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2012. The Commissioner was concerned with the correctness of an order dated 3062011 of the Assessing Officer. 5. The Tribunal found that the common issue is with regard to the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 45,38,213/under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Certain additions were made to the return of income by the Assessing Officer on which penalty came ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee came forward to disclose the income only during the assessment proceedings, the penalty has been correctly levied. The Tribunal found, in relation to each of the income on the touchstone of which the penalty was imposed, that the amounts were deposited in the Bank account. They reflected transferable development right sales executed by the deceased husband prior to 2002. The assessee expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and applied for levy of penalty, the plain language of the statutory provision and the peculiar facts. Once the assessee is a beneficiary of the amount received as a consequence of the transfer executed by her husband, of which she had no knowledge, she offered that during the course of the assessment proceedings, that does not mean that her act can be brought within the penalty provision. The e....