TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- 1. This appeal filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short "the Tribunal"), passed on May 27, 1999, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 467 and 468 (ASR)/1990, for the assessment year 1982-83. 2. The facts as narrated in the petition are culled out hereunder. 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 constituti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, dismissed, vide order dated May 27,1999. This is how the present appeal at the instance of the Revenue came to be filed. 5. The appellant has proposed the following two questions said to be sub- stantial questions of law for determination by this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) by holding that such penalties cannot 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 fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a revised return accordingly for the second and third period subject to no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Even these observations of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the revised return was filed by the assessee in response to an undertaking given by the Assessing Officer have not been assailed by the Departmental representative during the course of arguments. 12. We also find from the observation of the Commissioner 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 accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entional con- cealment of income. The assessee had furnished explanation that this amount was withdrawn from the books of account of M/s. Joginder Singh and Parduman Singh, income-tax assessees, and the same was wrongly credited to the bank account of the assessee-firm due to wrong entry made in the deposit slips and had produced material in support thereof before the Assessing Officer. After considering the plausibility of the said explanation, the Commissioner 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
