9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ("the Act"), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that there cannot be any question of concealment of income when there is no income?" The assessment year is 1983-84. The assessee filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Salt, the balance sum of Rs. 6,21,400 was added to the total income. The assessment order was challenged in the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed to take the value of the stock at Rs. 50 per tonne as claimed by the assessee but rejected the assessee's claim of loss in terms of quantity in the absence of proof to support the same. Accordingly, against the addition of Rs. 6,21,400 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , according to the Commissioner (Appeals), it was only a matter of opinion on which the addition could be sustained or reduced. He, therefore, deleted the penalty. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on a different ground. According to the Tribunal, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into the larger controversy as to existence or otherwise of positive income in the facts of the present case. It is an admitted position that the assessee was carrying on business of manufacturing salt and salt is stored in the open in heaps. Therefore, loss on account of cyclone and rain would be on an estimated basis. In fact this is what the Commissioner (Appeals) has found as a matter of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
