9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 26-2-2007 - JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P.D. DINAKARAN, J.- The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.7.2003 made in ITA No.1337/Mds/1996 for the assessment year 1992-93, and is admitted on the following question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tock of hatching eggs at the rate of Rs.2.66 per egg. The Assessing Officer found that there was wide difference between the value admitted and the actual value and brought the difference amount, viz., Rs.11,70,047/-, to assessment. In view of the suppression in the sale of eggs and the difference in the value of the closing stock, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- from the computation of penalty and confine to only the amount of Rs.25,000/- being the suppression of sale for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal raising the substantial question of law referred to above. 5. The learned Senior Standing C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction issued by the Indian Bank, Loans and Advances Department, Coimbatore dated 25.5.1992 is not disputed. In view of the same, there is no basis to treat the difference in value as the assessee's under-valuation of stock or undisclosed income. 8. Under such circumstances, there is no incertitude in coming to the conclusion that there is no error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
