9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. He stated that physical verification of stock was undertaken by the survey party and various discrepancies such as blank bills, bills not numbered and even two printouts of the same period were found. He relied on the series of decisions in support of his arguments that in such a case the penalty for concealment of income under s. 271(1)(c) is leviable on the assessee. He relied on the decisions in Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT 1977 CTR (Bom) 303: (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom), CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons (1996) 219 ITR 157 (Mad), Indira Chemical Agency vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 569 (Mad), CIT vs. R. Sadayappan (Decd.) (By LRs) (2002) 253 ITR 203 (Mad), CIT vs. Sudharshan Silks & Sarees (2001) 171 CTR (Kar) 256 : (2002) 253 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned counsel argued that the addition has been a matter of estimation only due to which the figure of addition has changed several times and for which penalty under s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. He argued that the penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied on the GP addition made by the Revenue. The learned counsel referred to the order of the AO passed under s. 154 of the Act wherein the contention of the assessee that the stock should have been valued @ Rs. 28 per mtr., instead of Rs. 35 per mtr, was accepted by the AO. He argued that the conditional surrender was made by the assessee in order to buy peace with Department and the condition was that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) shall not be levied on the assessee. He stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not authorised to enter into agreement with the assessee. He relied on decision in CIT vs. D.K.B. & Co. (2000) 161 CTR (SC) 187 : (2000) 243 ITR 618 (SC), AIR 1998 (SC) 591 on doctrine of promissory estoppel and also decisions in Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla & Ors. vs. CIT (2003) 179 CTR (Del) 218 : (2003) 259 ITR 258 (Del) and Union of India & Anr. vs. Banwari Lal Agarwal (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 300 : (1999) 238 ITR 461 (SC). He argued that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 489 : (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) being later in date than the decision in (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 182 : (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the decision in (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 489 : (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) shall be applied. He argued that in (2001) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein their income-tax file number, is also mentioned. In the facts of the case, we find that material pointed out by the Revenue may be sufficient to sustain the addition in the quantum case but is not sufficient to penalise the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. We are unable to agree with the learned Departmental Representative that the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 489 : (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) shall be applied being later in time than the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 182 : (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) for the reason that both the decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court were declared on different grounds. We are also not impressed with the argument of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
