9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FOR THE APPELLANT : MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) Since the common question of law is raised in both these appeals, they are being heard and decided together by this common oral judgment. 2. Tax Appeal No.900 of 2008 challenges the order dated 26/10/2007 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.987/Ahd/2007 for assessment year 20012002 and Tax Appeal No.901 of 2008 challenges the order dated 26/10/2007 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.1239/Ahd/2007 for assessment year 20012002. 2. The short facts of the case are that the assessee Cooperative Society was engaged in the manufacturing of milk and milk products popularly know ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitting this appeal, the following question has been posed for consideration: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c) in respect of undervaluation of closing stock and disallowance on account of rejection of deduction u/s. 80I of the Act, 1961? 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that there is inconsistency in the closing stock and therefore deduction under Section 80I ought not to have been granted by the learned Tribunal or the CIT (A). He has further contended that there is discrepancy in the deduction claimed under Section 80I and therefore the same ought not to have been granted. He, therefore, contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
