2018 (3) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Hirawat i/b. DMD Advocates, for the Respondent ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 22nd January, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 22nd January, 2014 is in respect of Assessment Year 2005-06. 2 Revenue urges the following question of law, for our considerat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the revised return by the Respondent-Assesee was not filed voluntarily but only after issuing a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. This on the ground of having filed inaccurate particulars of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 7.40 Crores. 5 Being aggrieved, Respondent carried the issue in Appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... original return of income. Thus, the CIT(A) comes to a finding of fact that the filing of the revised income was voluntarily done by the Respondent suo motu and not because of detection by the Revenue. 6 Being aggrieved by the order dated 21st July, 2011 of the CIT(A), deleting the penalty, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has also while coming to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as well as Tribunal have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act was filed by the RespondentAssessee on its own and not on account of any detection of inaccurate particulars of income being filed by the Respondent in its original return of income. The finding of fact rendered both by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the revised return of ....