TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 92,505/- imposed by the ITO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 3. In this case during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has hypothecated its stock with Bank of India, Hauz Khas, New Delhi for enjoying overdraft facilities showing value of hypothecated its stock at Rs. 33,98,640/- while the stock in its trading account was being shown at Rs. 16,14,155/-. The Assessing Officer summoned the bank of the assessee u/s. 131 and obtained the certified copy of bank statement supplied by the assessee. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 17,84,486/- in the value of stock shown by the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. UOI Anr. (2009) 317 ITR 107 (Delhi). 6.1 Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further observed that difference in stock to the tune of Rs. 2,35,983/- stands confirmed which has also been accepted by the Assessee. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further observed that the explanation of the assessee cannot be considered bona-fide. He observed that on the day of filing of return of income, the assessee was well aware of the statement filed with the bank with regard to the stock vis a vis the figure being reflected in the balance sheet. The discrepancy was discovered, only after the Assessing Officer embarked on the investigation and obtained the details with the bank. Thus, the assessee s contention that all the materials h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)was not leviable. Ld. counsel of the assessee further placed reliance upon the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta vs. UOI Anr. (2009) 317 ITR 107 (Delhi). 8.1 We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that undisputedly there is a difference of Rs. 2,35,983/- in the figure of stock as submitted by the assessee and as verified by the Assessing Officer through bank. This difference has been accepted by the assessee and assessee has not appealed against the same. In this connection, we do not find force in the ld. counsel of the assessee s contention that there is no satisfaction for levy of penalty in this case. Assessing Officer has very much mentioned th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
