Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Drapco Electric Corporation on 25 August, 1977
(supra) and CIT vs. Drapco Electric Corporation (Guj) (supra), which were
mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order.
(D) We have heard both sides patiently. We have also perused the materials
available on record. We find that there is no dispute between the two sides that the
returned income of the assessee had been accepted on both occasions firstly, when
return was filed on 15.10.2010; and secondly, when Assessment Order dated
29.12.2017 was passed U/s 147 of IT Act. Moreover, we find that the judicial
pronouncements on which the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. Sr. DR have
placed reliance are not applicable to the facts of the case because in none of the
aforementioned judicial pronouncements, assessed income was same as the
returned income. The overall effect of the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017 was
that the head under which the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,62,000/- was assessed,
changed from income under "PGBP" (as shown by the assessee) to addition U/s 68
of IT Act, (as assessed by the Assessing Officer); in the process, however, assessing
income of the assessee at income of Rs. 59,67,040/- which is same as the returned
income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have failed
to make out a case for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act because they have
been unable to show, when assessed income is same as returned income; whether,
and if so, how allegation of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income can be
said to have resulted in tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. That there was
some tax sought to be evaded by assessee, is a necessary condition for imposition
of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. The allegation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the
Page 5 of 7
ITA No.-5534/Del/2019.
Section 115BBE in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys Ltd. on 9 November, 1993
9. Power of Attorney
(C) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee
vehemently contended that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act levied in the case of the
Assessee was erroneous in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He drew
our attention to the fact that there was no addition to the returned income of the
assessee either at the time when original return was filed on 15.10.2010 or in the
course of proceedings U/s 147 of IT Act. He contended that the returned income of
the assessee has been accepted by Revenue, in view of which penalty U/s 271(1)(c)
of IT Act should be deleted. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative ("Ld. Sr.
DR" for short) relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). He
also drew our attention to the case laws i.e CIT vs. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1