2012 (8) TMI 1235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....73, 174 and 175 of 2009 in respect of Assessment Years 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 respectively. As the facts involved are similar and the issue is identical, the appeals are considered and decided together and are being disposed of by this common order. 1.1 In all the three appeals, the appellant has raised the following common question, proposing it to be a substantial question of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 9,65,240/-?". 2. We heard learned advocate Mr. Pranav G. Desai for the appellant. 3. The relevant facts involved are that the assessee is a Trust and registered under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n these investments is also assessed on protective basis in the hands of the appellant. In para-7 of the order in all the above assessment years, the AO has also recorded that the demand on addition of Rs. 19,43,000/-, Rs. 4,38,000/- and Rs. 57,90,974 in the above assessment years respectively will remain protective and recovery may not be enforced till the decision in the case of Swami Keshavanandji is arrived at. Thus, the penalty has been levied in the case of appellant on the assessments made on protective basis and demand, which too is protective and not enforceable. Since the assessments made on substantive basis have already been upheld by the ITAT in the case of Swami Keshavanand, the assessments made on protective ba....