9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty is initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is applicable in the present case. Besides this, the assessee has rightly submitted the closing stock details as well as the stock difference was also reflected in the audited accounts and there was no case built up by the Revenue that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of income in as much as that there is no such default. 2. He has erred in upholding the penalty partly without considering the facts that submission dated 07.03.2020 in response to penalty notice has not been considered by the A.O. in as much as that there is no malafide intention for evading tax liability. 3. He has erred in upholding penalty in part in as much as that in the notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Penalty Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in upholding the penalty to the extent of addition of Rs. 1,81,725/- being difference in stock. The assessee inadvertently has claimed credit of opening stock of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91 ITR 519(SC) and also relied upon the decision of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 6 SCC 329. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has difference in closing stock is not justifiable as the assessee has admittedly submitted that the Audited Accounts has given proper details related to the opening stock and closing stock details after taking into consideration the purchase register. Thus, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
