2018 (3) TMI 1363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Mr. P.C. Tripathi i/b Atul Jasani for the appellant / applicant Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondent P.C. 1. The appellant has taken out the notice of motion seeking expeditious hearing of Income Tax Appeal No.157 of 2017 and also a stay of the operation of the order dated 30th June, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The motion would require consideration only if the appeal merits admission. 3. In the above circumstances, we first take up the appeal for consideration. 4. On hearing the parties, we find that the appeal requires admission as it raises the following substantial question of law : " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in la....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant, the amount was small and in any case it was only an issue of timing difference. In any case, penalty proceedings are different from quantum proceedings and requirements of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act must be satisfied before any party is visited with penalty. We find that the impugned order has upheld penalty without having given a clear finding as to whether penalty which is being upheld ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income would apply in the facts of this case. Prima facie, the aforesaid issue seems to be covered in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 which in turn followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and ....