T.A. BEIKTE, J.M. - (1.) THIS is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Trivandrum, dt. 28th Feb., 1992, on four grounds pertaining to the only one issue of cancellation of penalty of Rs. 2,77,500 levied under s. 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, in relation to the asst. yr. 1987-88.
(2.) The AO held that the provisions of Expln. 5(a) to s. 271(l)(c) are applicable to the facts of the case and, therefore, the provisions of s. 271(l)(c) are attracted. The CIT(A) held that the said Explanation is not applicable to the facts of the case and relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of South Indian Finance vs. ITO (1991) 39 TTD 370 (Coch) to cancel the penalty. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the cancellation of the penalty levied under s. 271(l)(c) has come in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, Sri Kuruvilla M. George. We have also heard the learned counsel for the assessee, Sri C. Kochunni Nair. We have taken into consideration the rival submissions.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Departmental Representative, Kuruvilla M. George, the penalty levied by the AO is in consonance with the provisions of s. 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. He submitted that the AO has rightly applied the Expln. 5(a) to s. 271(l)(c) for levying the penalty for concealment of income. The assessee had come in appeal before the Tribunal, being ITA No. 30(Coch)/1992 relating to the asst. yr. 1987-88, under appeal. After considering all the facts and the arguments advanced on both sides in the above quantum appeal, the Tribunal held that the estimate adopted by the CIT(A) was quite reasonable in the circumstances of the case and confirmed the addition of Rs. 55,000 as unexplained investment. Therefore, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that penalty to the extent of the addition of Rs. 55,000 confirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal has to be confirmed. He further submitted that confirmation of the addition by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal is the concealed income of the assessee and, therefore, penalty levied under s. 271(l)(c) is warranted.;