Tribunal had allowed the assessees appeal remitting the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271 1 c relating to the assessment year 1996 97, relying upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in CIT v. Prithipal Singh Co., 183 ITR 69, which was affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Prithipal Singh Co., Civil Appeal No.
10,28,462.00, Rs.
FACTS C.A. NO.
340 of 2004 filed by the Revenue and held that the Tribunal was number right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271 1 c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act merely on the ground that the total income of the assessee was assessed at a minus figure loss.
7115 OF 2005 For the assessment year 1996 97, the assessee appellant returned an income of Rs.
1,47,97,994.00, an amount of Rs.
63,43,750.00 The Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order of assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment and fresh proceedings companycluded with an order of assessment dated 19.03.2002 in which it was found that the appellant had a loss of Rs.
340 of 2004 in the High Court of Delhi against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
11,02,255.00.
ii Therefore, the Appellants income was reduced to Rs.
1,47,97,995.01 Accordingly, the appellant filed a nil return and carried forward the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.
He companycluded the issue against the appellant on the basis of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P.R. Basavappa Sons v. CIT, 243 ITR 776 Karnataka .
10,28,462.00 iii Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 Rs.
15,53,487.72 Total Rs.
63,43,750.00 be added as income.
15,53,487.72 Rs.
1,15,000.00 Rs.
63,43,750.00 Rs.
1961 of 1996 dated 27.07.2000, reported in 249 ITR 670 SC .
1,32,44,507.29 Rs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi I, the respondent herein, filed ITA No.
57,51,520.00 Rs.
Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the judgments in Prithipal Singhs case 183 ITR 69 and 249 ITR 670 will apply even after insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 271 1 c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976?
By order dated nil September, 2002, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax levied a penalty of Rs.
68,00,757.00 iii The appellant was able to prove some sources of the share application money and the amount of Rs.
High Court allowed the ITA No.
69,15,757.00 Rs.
Assessee also filed ITA No.
1,15,000.00.
1,47,97,995.01 Rs.
68,00,757.00 Rs.
Facts are taken from Civil Appeal No.
31,71,692.00.
15,53,487.72 to the following year.
By the assessment order dated 30.03.1999, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax assessed the appellants income at a figure of Rs.
47,03,120.00.
19,16,000.00 added back was reduced to Rs.
1,15,000.00 iv Adding the above amount, the Appellants income became Rs.
69, 15, 757.00 v Depreciation on leased vehicles claimed at 40 was reduced to 20 as in the original assessment and an amount of Rs.
10,28,462.00 was disallowed.
vi Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs.
80,18,011.00 Rs.
1,47,97,995.00 Rs.
67,79,982.00 Rs.
11,02,255.00 Rs.
69,15,757.00 Rs.
80,18,012.00 Rs.
11,02,255.00 In this manner, the carry forward loss of Rs.
15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs.
11,02,225.00.
57,51,520.00 ii Reduction of claim of depreciation in respect of leasing vehicles from 40 to 20.
67,79,982.00 Rs.
19,16,000.00 iv Lease rentals of cinematographic films held to be bogus and assessed as income from other sources Rs.
68,00,757.00 returned income, Rs.
He distinguished the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prithipal Singhs case supra , which was affirmed by this Court on the ground that it related to the assessment year 1971 72 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 1 c had number been introduced.
He added the amounts disallowed i.e. Rs.
7115 of 2005.
The depreciation claimed for the year was Rs.1,47,97,995.01 companyputed as under Depreciation for Assessment year 1996 97 Rs.
10,28,462.00 Rs.
1,32,44,507.29 Unabsorbed depreciation for Assessment Year 1995 96 Rs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax companyfirmed the order of the assessing officer on 24.12.2002.
1,32,44,507.00 Rs.
of 2004 being aggrieved against a part of the order of the Tribunal.
Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act which was allowed by the High Court by the impugned order.
In the appeal filed by the Revenue in the High Court of Delhi, the following two questions of law were framed Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271 1 c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the total income of the assessee has been assessed at a minus figure loss?
