9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal are essentially findings of fact which have not been shown to be erroneous or perverse. In view of these uncontroverted facts, the conclusion of the Tribunal has to be upheld - - - - - Dated:- 13-9-2004 - Judge(s) : N. K. SUD., S. S. GREWAL. JUDGMENT At the instance of the Revenue the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short "the Tribunal") has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated March 12, 1987, relating to the assessment year 1979-80 for the opinion of this court:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, levied a penalty of Rs. 24,390 equal to the tax sought to be evaded under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax accepted the explanation of the assessee and deleted the penalty. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by observing as under:- "In our opinion, there is no ground to interfere. As pointed out by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it is undisputed that the rejected goods were not received in the assessee's godown on the closing day, i.e., March 31,1979 and they were received long after, i.e. in September, 1979 when necessary entries were made in the closing stock. From the order of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , would not attract penalty and in this behalf the assessee's case is fully supported by the decision cited by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), i.e., CIT v. N. A. Mohamed Haneef [1972] 83 ITR 215 (SC)." Learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to controvert the factual position as noticed by the Tribunal. From the above findings, it is clear that the Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the assessee that it was only because of bona fide mistake that the value of rejected goods were not shown in the closing stock as on March 31, 1979. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact which have not been shown to be erroneous or perverse. In view of these uncontroverted facts, the conclusion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
