TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deciding that proving contumacious intent is an essential ingredient in levy of penalty in contravention of the provisions of a Civil Statute like Income Tax Act in spite of there being so many judgements that breach of a Civil obligation attracts levy of penalty whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is in contravention of many judicial pronouncements including Thirupathy Kumar Khemka vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 291 ITR (Mad); 210 CTR 287 (Mad)? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....3.1996 made the assessment and also ordered for initiation of proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the above orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad who partly allowed the appeal vide his order dated 16.2.1998 against which both revenue and the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal which was decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 5.8.2004 in ITA No.2865/D/98. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated penal proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) and in those penalty proceedings, the assessee was granted an opportunity to explain as to why penalty orders should not be passed on the points of additions which were finally upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be evaded Rs. 4,13,338/- minimum penalty @ 100% Rs. 4,13,338/- M minimum penalty @ 300% Rs. 12,40,014/- Pe penalty imposed Rs. 4,15,000/- Issued Demand notice and challan.The above penalty order has been passed after taking necessary approval from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Faridabad communicated vide his letter No.380 dated 28.04.2005." 5. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.4.2005, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad who vide his order dated 26.10.2005 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e find that the return was filed by the assessee on 4.1.1994 whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC) was rendered on 27.2.1997 holding fees payable to Registrar of Companies for increase in share capital as capital expenditure. Thus on the date of filing of the return the assessee did not have the benefit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, penalty cannot be levied on the sum of Rs.7,500/- paid to Registrar of Companies. Further with regard to Rs.5,71,360/- not shown the assessee in the closing stock we find that the assessee admitted the mistake and the Tribunal while deciding the issue has held that this amount has to be included in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e view that the penalty levied cannot be sustained in law. Hence, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the penalty of Rs.4,15,000/-. The grounds of appeal of the assesses are allowed." 7. Mr. Yogesh Putney, counsel for the appellant, has argued that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars as the additions have been made on the returned income as declared by the assessee and therefore, the breach of this statutory obligation attracts levy of penalty irrespective of the fact whether the contravention was made by the assessee with any guilty intention or not. 8. After considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we find no force in the contention raised by the counsel f....