TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the block period 1996 to 2002. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in laws in sustaining the Penalty levied under the provision of section 158 BFA(2)/(3) of the Act, where the appellant had not factually concealed the income and addition sustained of Rs. 67.36 lacs had been contrary to several case laws relied upon, in regard to jotting on rough pad written by other person, which also retracted by him. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in laws in sustaining the levy of penalty towards bad debts of Rs. 62,06 lacs; where the same had been established/ became bad before the end of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd (supra) . 5.1 Hence we admit the ground of appeal raised by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the same. 5.2 First, we take up the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee. The assessee in additional ground of has challenged the validity of the penalty order framed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.3 The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the business of construction, finance and film distribution. There was a search conducted on the assessee dated 25-07-2002 under section 132 of the Act. As a result of search certain documents of incriminating nature were found and accordingly the assessment was framed under section 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 271(1)(c) of the Act which can be treated as typographical mistake. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. The learned AR in his rejoinder submitted that the AO in his penalty order has made the reference to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act at various places. Similarly the AO while concluding the penalty order has specifically referred to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act . Therefore the mistake committed by the AO in the penalty order cannot be termed as typographical mistake. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case the issue arises for our consideration so as to whether the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 62, the Assessing Officer has issued notice to complete assessment of theassessee under section 153C read with 153A(1)(b) and not under section 132 of the Act. Therefore,the initiation of penalty is void abinitio and therefore, the order under section 271AAA has to bequashed. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section271AA. Thus, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 10.2 In the backdrop of the above stated discussion, we refer to the penalty order framed by the AO, we find that the penalty has been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant order of the penalty is reproduced as under: I am satisfied that the assessee had concealed and has furnished ....