9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court] - there was as such no concealment by the assessee and the stock statement given to the Bank was purely for the purpose of accommodating existing bank finances and the assessee was required to submit stock statement showing a particular value of the stock in order to continuously enjoy overdraft facility and whatever was submitted before the Bank was disclosed before the authority and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer, imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. Penalty was imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Anand under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 23,02,326/- for difference in the stock between the stock statements given to the bank while enjoying the overdraft facility availed from Charotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and has quashed and set aside the order deleting the penalty. 5. Having heard Shri Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal has directed to delete the penalty relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Minerals Sales Corpn. [2002] 253 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosed before the authority and therefore as such there was no concealment, learned Tribunal has rightly deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal while deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. No substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. Hence, present appeal deserv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
