TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18.03.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A. Nos.942 to 944/CHNY/2010 for the assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, respectively, by raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with reference to the facts of the present case without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein/ respondent before them? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with reference to the facts of the present case in spite of the decision of this Hon'ble Court rendered in T.C.Appeal No.52/2010 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicant submitted that there was no notice issued by the Department after the search was conducted in the premises of M/s.Apollo Hospitals prior to the filing of the revised return of income by the Review Applicant. That apart, there is nothing placed on record to demonstrate that the documents / materials seized from the premises of M/s.Apollo Hospitals were made available prior to the applicant furnishing the revised return of income. However, without considering all these aspects and without providing any opportunity to the Review Applicant, the Tribunal reversed the appellate order relating to deletion of penalty. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the Review Applicant filed his revised return of income on 15.03.2006 bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) and as such, the Review applicant who is a doctor by profession and had already paid the tax amount for the assessment years in question, will be put to serious mental agony and his professional career will be affected in the event of penalty being levied on him. Submitting so, the learned counsel prayed for appropriate orders in these review applications. 4. The learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the issues involved in the present case and in the case of Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan are not one and the same and therefore, prayed for dismissal of these review applications. 5. Hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in different factual scenarios, wherein the issue involved related to voluntary surrender after search / during the course of consequential assessment made in the hands of the searched person himself, as opposed to the facts obtaining in the present cases. Thus, the Review applicant submitted that the above said facts have been omitted to be considered by this court at the time when the judgment under Review was passed. 8. It is not in dispute that before issuance of section 148 notice, the Review applicant had filed his revised return of income voluntarily, which was also accepted by the Department. What is disputed is the imposition of penalty, especially, when the Review applicant had already paid the entire tax amount for the assessm....