9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against 18,630 kg. of last year. Since the assessee did not show the labour charge receipts to the extent increase in consumption of raw materials, the ITO concluded that the consumption of zinc should have been less and closing stock was suppressed by the assessee. He, therefore, after taking the entire facts into consideration calculated the gross profit at 2.5 per cent and made addition of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of suppression of closing stock, treating the same as the assessee's concealed income. The assessee did not file an appeal against the said order but filed a revision petition under s. 264 before the CIT, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated and after hearing the parties a penalty of Rs. 1,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (1987) 63 CTR (Bom) 130 : (1988) 169 r 33 (Bom) and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills Ltd. Anr. vs. CIT (1987) 64 CTR (SC) 199 : (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC). 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied on the order of the learned CIT(A) and also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court reported as CIT vs. Rowther Brothers (9179) 8 CTR (Ker) 68 : (1970) 119 ITR 353 (Ker) and CIT vs. Varkey Chacko (1980) 16 CTR (Ker) 97 : (1980) 126 ITR 469 (Ker). 5. We have heard the parties at length and also perused the entire facts on record. The Amristsar Bench of the try in the case of Victory P.H.M. Transport Co. (P) Ltd. had held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in such cases, the levy of penalty was liable to be quashed. In the same way, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills Ltd. Anr. vs. CIT had held that where the assessee had agreed to certain additions to maintain good relations it does not amount to an admission of concealment, and in such cases the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) are not attracted. In the present case, the ITO, while scrutinising the accounts, came to the conclusion that certain closing stock had been suppressed and made addition of Rs. 2,70,000 in the profits. The assessee, as alleged by him, had not filed any appeal just to buy peace and his petition for revision under s. 264 was rejected by the learned CIT. These facts, themselves di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
