2019 (7) TMI 705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 23.11.2016 made in ITA.No.1450/Mds/2016 and C.O.No.150/ Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : "TCA.No.954 of 2018 : i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant without addressing its merits only on the sole ground of limitation prescribed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the miscellaneous petition even while it was factually clear that the appeal was insti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l was right in law in not considering the explanation offered by the assessee as to the source of investment in gold and jewelry in proper perspective ? And iv. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in not following its decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Shanmugapriya [ITA.No.357 of 2016 dated 15.7.2016] where a similar and like question was squarely decided in favour of the assessee, hailing from the same family ?" 3. TCA.No.82 of 2019 is the substantive appeal, which is against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 23.11.2016 reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-18), Chennai [for short, the CIT(A)], who deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed a ....

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 initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 19.3.2014 alleging that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee was heard in the matter and the explanation offered by the assessee was not found to be acceptable. Consequently, the proposal in the notice was confirmed and penalty was imposed vide order dated 23.9.2014. 7. As against the said order dated 23.9.2014, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who, by order dated 22.2.2016, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. As against the order of the CIT(A), The Revenue carried the matter to the Tribunal, which, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal filed by the Department by order dated 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dulgence should not be granted to the assessee considering the plea raised by her and more particularly in the affidavit filed in support of the said miscellaneous petition. The explanation offered by the assessee should be tested for its correctness and only if it is found to be palpably false or not acceptable, then the question of imposing the penalty would arise. Hence, the Tribunal could not have applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 448]. 11. It appears that the decision in the case of Shanmugapriya was not placed before the Tribunal when the impugned order was passed. Nevertheless, this Court does not propose to foreclose the rights o....