2020 (9) TMI 971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7-08. 2. The appeal was admitted on 13.11.2019 on the following substantial questions of Law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of advances shown as purchases amounting to Rs. 1.25 crores? (ii) Whether the finding arrived by the Tribunal was proper especially when there was gross negligence in not making necessary adjustments, additions and disallowance in the accounts which resulted in incorrect income being shown which will clearly show that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the return filed? 3. Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner of Income Tax Vs. S.I.Paripushpam [(2001) 118 Taxman.844 (Mad)] and the decision in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [(2001) 118 Taxman 324 (SC)]. The decision in the case of Mak Data was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.12.2013, i.e., much after the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2012. 6. Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel is right in her submission that the Court has to take note of law prevailing as on date, and the law relied on in Mak Data case if applied to the case on hand, then the order of the Tribunal calls for interference. 7. We have perused the reasons assigned in the impugned order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal took note of the deci....