2018 (5) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reliminary objection that since the tax effect involved in the present case is below Rs. 20,00,000/-, the present appeal by filed by the Revenue before this Court is not maintainable. 4. He has relied upon the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, according to which the appeal before this Court filed under Section 260A of the Act having tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- of monetary limits is not required to be filed by the Revenue. 5. In the present case, the penalty under Section 271E of the Act was imposed on the respondent-Assessee Smt. S.B. Patil, Proprietor, Adarsha Dairy Farm, Ainapur, District Vijayapur, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing Officer was satisfied that penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act were to be initiated. The assessee carried out this order in appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment order with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. After remand, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order. In this assessment order, however, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act was recorded. It so happened that on the basis of the original assessment order dated February 26, 1996, show-cause notice was given to the assessee and it resulted in passing the penalty order dated Sept....