Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2003-04 - Commissioner issued a notice to assessee company furnish reasons for two transactions in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 failing which a penalty would be levied at rate of 100 per cent of amount transacted in cash - Assessee filed its reply to show-cause notice explaining pressing circumstances due to which cash transactions in excess of Rs. 20,000 were executed - Commissioner rejected explanations of assessee without giving reasons and imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,65,240 under section 271B - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld findings of Commissioner - While assessee's appeal before Tribunal was pending, revenue raised demand of Rs. 11,65,240 - Assessee filed a stay petition before Tribunal - Tribunal rejected petition and fixed an early date of hearing - Assessee's case was that though all transactions were reflected in account books and there was no allegation of any suppression of income etc., Commissioner (Appeals) had not at all considered explanations submitted by it in grounds of appeal filed and in petition seeking for waiver and sufficient grounds had been raised to establish a prima facie case for grant of waiver but Tribunal had not at all considered any of those aspects, but had simply rejected petition and fixed an early date for hearing - Whether since Commissioner (Appeals) had not at all considered case on merits and had also not considered various objections and explanations offered by assessee, it could be said that order of Commissioner (Appeals) was virtually a non-speaking order passed in a mechanical manner - Held, yes - Whether Tribunal had also committed an error in not considering as to whether a prima facie case had been made out for granting waiver as prayed by assessee when a huge amount was demanded from assessee, that too, in nature of penalty - Held, yes - Whether since Tribunal's order was suffering from non-application of mind, same was liable to be set aside - Held, yes P.S. Raman and Sivanandraj for the Petitioner. Ms. Pushya Seetharaman for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Ms. Pushya Seetharaman, learned Senior Central Government…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492