9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; 3. The matter herein relates to assessments made for two periods during the assessment year 1982-83, the first being for the period up to August 15, 1981, and the second from August 16, 1981 up to March 31, 1982, because of change in the constitution of the assessee-firm. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was detected that the assessee had suppressed the value of closing stock. Besides this, certain deposits were found which were not disclosed in the books of account of the assessee. For the first period up to August 15, 1981, suppression in the value of closing stock was worked out at Rs. 36,536 and for the remaining period up to March 31, 1982, at Rs. 1,01,970. The assessee on being checked furnished a revised return b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be imposed upon such income, which stands disclosed in the revised return prior to regular assessment particularly when the concealed income had already been detected and pointed out to the assessee prior to the filing of revised return ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer in respect of the bank deposits and the cash credits by holding that the same cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee as he had disclosed all material facts before the Assessing Officer ?" 6. The Tribunal, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income-tax (Appeals) that specific addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of difference in valuation of closing stock. Although the stock at the second period as per the revised return was to the tune of Rs. 2,36,544 as against shown in the books of account originally by the assessee at Rs. 2,21,250 and it shows that, in fact, the valuation of closing stock varied due to the application of higher rate of G. P. and consequently this was the case of the lower G. P. as shown by the assessee rather than the case of suppression of stock by the assessee. By filing the revised return and showing the value of closing stock at higher figure of Rs. 2,36,554 as against original valuation at Rs. 2,21,250 the assessee has simp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal had concluded that no penalty on that amount was exigible. 9. Similarly, the explanation with regard to cash credit totalling Rs. 26,000 in the name of Sh. Narinder Singh, Daulat Ram, Ravinder Pal Singh and Tarlochan Singh was not doubted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal and, thus, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer had been deleted. 10. The above is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the appellate authorities below, which is based on appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for interference by this court as we find that there is no illegality or perversity in the said finding nor could any be pointed out by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
