9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 right in holding that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by way of understatement of the value of closing stock of hatching eggs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht 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 271(1)(c) of the Act, and being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, penalty of a sum of Rs.3,17,318/- was levied. 3. The assessee preferred an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 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 Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that there was wide difference between the value admitted and the actual value and therefore, the Assessing Officer is rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence 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 Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Hence, we answer the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the appeal is dismissed. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
