TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2005 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- 1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the assessee against the order dated August 31, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, (SMC) (in short "the Tribunal"), in I. T. A. No. 332/ASR/1999 relating to the assessment year 1995-96. 2. The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there had been concealment of income by the assessee ? 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as narrated in the appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in pursuance of the said proceedings, a penalty of Rs. 23,740 was imposed on the appellant, vide order dated December 23, 1998, annexure A 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on appeal by the assessee deleted the penalty, vide order dated March 18, 1999, annexure A 2, against which the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated August 31, 2004, reversed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and held that the deletion of penalty was not justified. It was ordered that the penalty be calculated on the basis of the amount of addition finally sustained by the Tribunal. 6. It is how the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was found to be having excess stock of first and second class bricks at the time of survey. Inventory was prepared and duly signed by the assessee. This is not the case where some stock was found in excess by the survey party and the assessee settled the dispute by agreeing for certain additions subject to no penalty. On the contrary, the Tribunal being the final fact finding authority, vide paragraph 6 of its order in quantum has recorded a categorical finding as under : 'Since stock with respect to first class and second class bricks has been found in excess and inventory prepared at the time of survey had duly been signed by the assessee, therefore, the addition in this regard is called for and the same has rightly been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the value of the stock but the Tribunal restricted the addi- tion to Rs. 7,163 by holding that only the GP rate of such sales be applied. In such circumstances, we hold that the deletion of penalty by the first appellate authority was not justified. We order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the quantum of penalty on the basis of the amount of addition finally sustained by the Tribunal." 9. Further, in Income-tax Appeal No. 102 of 2006, filed by the present assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been upheld and the appeal dismissed. 10. No error could be pointed out by the counsel for the assessee in the findings recorded by the Tribunal as noticed above. An attempt was made by the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
