RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) PASSED by the AO. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has received interest on FDRs at Rs. 1,28,232 which was not included in the original return filed in response to notice under s. 148 of the Act. The said amount was included in the assessable income of the assessee. While making assessment vide order separately. Notice under s. 274 r/w s. 271 of the Act was issued, asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty passed by the Asstt. CIT, Karnal Circle, Karnal a penalty of Rs. 82,436 was imposed upon the assessee. The CIT(A), was directed to be deleted.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi. The Tribunal found that penalty was not imposable as there was no conscious breach of law. While dismissing the appeal of Revenue in the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A).
(3.) THE present appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act') has been filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 4330/Del/2005 for the asst. yr. 1996 -97 raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'], cancelling the penalty, levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, by applying the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Munish Iron Store (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 159 : (2003) 263 ITR 484 (P&H), as in that case revised return was filed voluntarily, by the assessee, whereas in the instant case, the respondent assessee filed return in response to notice under s. 148 of the Act and the case is covered by Expln. 3 to s 271(1)(c) of the Act attracting levy of penalty ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is in terms of the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 as the AO while initiating the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order itself - We have heard Shri Sanjeev Kaushik, learned counsel for the Revenue and have also perused the impugned order.;