TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal Commissioner of Income Tax has filed this petition to challenge the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.09.2017 by which, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from Rs. 13,00,990/- to the extent relatable to addition of Rs. 4,37,265/-. 2. Brief facts are as under:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resented business dealings. However, he admitted that he had not maintained any books of accounts to show that the amount invested represented sale proceeds. CIT(A) therefore dismissed the appeal confirming the penalty. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part reducing the penalty from Rs. 13,00,990/- to the extent relatable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that much. The Tribunal imposed penalty which was 10% of the tax sought to be evaded which was wholly impermissible. The other reason for the Revenue to file this writ petition was that as per CBDT circular dated 10.12.2015, no appeal would be filed before the High Court if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lacs. 4. It may be possible for the Revenue to argue that the monetary limits set out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtain this petition. 5. Before closing however, we may record our disapproval of the approach adopted by the Tribunal while reducing the penalty. In plain terms, statutory provisions contained in section 27 envisage penalty which would be 100% of the tax sought to be evaded and which may go up to 300% thereof. The Tribunal, however, found a way to bypass this minimum limit by suggesting that the ....