9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Act, 1961 is made to the orders passed by the Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Authority in the matter of levying penalty against respondent/assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. The assessee is a partnership firm trading in cloth and furnishing items. On 15.11.2000 survey at the premises of assessee was undertaken under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Return was filed by the assessee declaring the income of Rs.83,157/- on 21.3.2002. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessing authority concluded the assessment under Section 143(3) and a total income of Rs.9,64,940/- was found. Subsequently on rectification being undertaken under Section 154 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealment of stock was quashed. This order passed by the appellate authority vide Annexure A-2 was challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal both by the revenue and the assessee. The income tax appellate tribunal vide Annexure A-3 allowed the appeal of assessee and dismissed the appeal of revenue, this appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section260-A of the I.T. Act. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the orders passed by the appellate authority and the appellate tribunal, the reasons given by the authorities and tried to emphasize that for the purpose of imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) mens rea is not an essential ingredient and once concealment of income is established no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and, therefore, on this count penalty cannot be imposed. However, with regard to concealment of Rs.8,00,000/- i.e. regarding unexplained investment by partners deliberate act of concealment is found and imposition of penalty on this amount is established. The findings, concurrent in nature recorded by the appellate authority and the appellate tribunal seems to be reasonable and as the exoneration from payment of penalty for concealment on account of excess stock is found to be not a concealment in accordance to the authorities concerned we see no reason to interfere into the matter in this proceeding. The concurrent findings recorded by the appellate authority and the appellate tribunal is based on due appreciation of the totality of fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
