9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Dec., 2003 and arises out of a penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dt. 26th Sept., 2001 by the ITO. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the assessee had filed return of income by declaring loss of Rs. 1,10,711. The AO completed the assessment on an income of Rs. 3,19,850 vide order dt. 25th March, 1996. Ultimately addition of Rs. 1,05,500 was made on account of unex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Departmental (Authorised) Representative has placed reliance on the decision of the Asstt. CIT vs. Apsara Processors (P) Ltd. (2005) 92 TTJ (Ahd)(SB) 645. 5. In addition to the above, it has been submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that both the AO for levying penalty and the learned CIT(A) for confirming the same relied on wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact is that returned loss remained loss even after computation and therefore in view of the above-relied Tribunal order no penalty could be levied for concealment when return of loss ended up in loss. 8. Lastly, even if the deposits could not be properly explained, this fact in itself would not lead to a conclusion that the assessee had concealed its income. There is no finding on record that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
