2022 (9) TMI 1243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9-10, which in turn, arose from the order dated 15/03/2018, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The present appeal has been listed for hearing before us pursuant to the order dated 01/07/2022, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v/s Evergreen Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd., M.A. no.105/ Mum./2022 (in ITA no.5483/Mum./2019, for the assessment year 2009-10), whereby, the earlier order dated 02/07/2021, passed under section 254(1) of the Act was recalled and appeal was directed to be re-fixed for hearing. 3. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in: Whether On t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7. Meanwhile, the penalty order dated 15/03/2018, was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein penalty of Rs.65,655, was levied on the basis that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In further appeal against the penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 31/05/2019, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis that levy of penalty is merely on disallowance of expenditure and not concealment of any particulars or mala fide intention to reduce the taxable income. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing, at the outset,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as under:- "3. We find at the outset, the Id AR argued that penalty that is in dispute before us, falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT in its Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 for preferring appeal by the Revenue before this Tribunal. We find that the Id. DR vehemently argued that the said case falls within the exception provided in para 10(e) of the said Circular and accordingly he argued that the appeal is maintainable. We find that the exception provided in para 10(e) of the Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 is applicable only for the quantum proceedings and the same cannot be made applicable for penalty proceedings. It is well settled that penalty and quantum assessment proceedings are distinct and separate.....