9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee against the order of CIT (Appeals), who sustained the penalty of Rs. 12,25,000 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)( c ) relating to assessment year 1989-90. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in paints. A survey was conducted on the premises of assessee on 9-12-1997, which led to detection of some excess stock to the tune of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under section 133A, the excess stock was found, therefore he imposed penalty of Rs. 12,25,000 on the assessee under section 271(1)( c ). The CIT (Appeals) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee is in appeal here before the Tribunal. 3. Same contentions were reiterated here before the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on various decisions reported in Amir Chand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no part of income has been concealed by assessee. This is not the case of the department that after filing the return or during the assessment proceedings, some thing was detected and then the same was surrendered. A survey took place before the last date of the previous year and the assessee has filed its return under section 139(1), therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
