TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 15-3-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH, JJ. Mr. K.K. Mehta, Sr.Standing counsel for the Revenue. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 24.8.2009 in I.T.A. No.596/Chd/2009 for the assessment year 2000-01 proposing following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the additions/disallowance made which formed basis of penalty had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment records shows that the books of account were duly audited and the firm showed net profit at the rate of 0.41% against 0.47% showed in immediate proceeding year. The impugned profit was declared after setting of interest and salaries to the partners. Admittedly, the profit declared in assessment year 1999-2000 was accepted by the department. The huge labour and transportation expenses left unpaid during assessment year 1999-2000 and disbursed this year had already explained and accepted and verified during scrutiny proceedings for assessment year 2000-01. Similarly, the labour and transport expenses carried over this year and paid in next year were also verified by the learned Assessing Officer during assessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciously. As held by the Tribunal in the order reproduced above, the books of account of the assessee were duly audited and profit declared by the assessee was accepted by the department for the previous year. Substantial part of the expenses claimed was duly explained by the assessee. Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case, an inference could be drawn that there was concealment of income or there was furnishing of incorrect particulars, is a question of fact. In the present case, the Tribunal has analysed the facts and held that the assessee could not be held to have consciously given inaccurate particulars. 7. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
