- (1.) THE present IT appeal filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been admitted "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly cancelled the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the income returned by the assessee at loss was also assessed at loss. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate, while cancelling the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) that the year involved in the case of CIT vs. Prithipal Singh and Co. (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 187 : (2001) 249 ITR 670 (SC) relied upon by the learned Tribunal was for the asst. yr. 1970 -71 and after the insertion of Expln. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) w.e.f. asst. yr. 1976 -77 the law laid down in the above case would not apply in the present case which pertains to asst. yr. 1986 -87. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of P.R. Basavappa and Sons vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (Kar) 198 : (2000) 243 ITR 776 (Kar) has upheld the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in case of the assessee's income being in loss."
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows : "The respondent assessee is a public limited company and is engaged in the business of printing and publishing of newspapers and journals etc. For the asst. yr. 1987 -88 the assessee had filed its return of loss of Rs. 77,91, 590. The returned loss of Rs. 77,91,590. As the amount of loss was reduced in the assessment proceeding, the proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposition of penalty for concealment was initiated. The Dy. CIT, Special Range -I, Lucknow 30,00,000 as penalty. Feeling aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dt. 20th
(3.) WE have heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. The learned senior standing counsel submitted that in view of the Expln. 4 to s. 271 of the Act where the figure of loss is reduced penalty is exigible as there is concealment of part of the income. It may be mentioned here that prior to reduced. This position has been upheld by the apex Court in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 207 CTR (SC) The apex Court has held that the aforesaid amendment is not retrospective in nature.;