9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] is preferred challenging the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT" for short] dated 05.01.2012 proposing following substantial question of law for our consideration. A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law in canceling penalty levied at Rs.11,38,540/under Section 271(1)(C) by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short], which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Pursuant to such confirmation of the order by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) read with Section 274 of the Act against the assessee and levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.11,98,705/. The appeal was once again preferred before the CIT(A) challenging such order of the penalty. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the material for an year under consideration was 20% more whereas the consumption of the power and fuel was less than the previous year. Such ratio was found unbelievable by the Assessing Officer. It was held to be furnishing of the inaccurate particulars and concealment on the part of the assessee. The CIT(A) also had concur with such findings of the Assessing Officer. [4.1] The Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the report of the Auditor was also placed along with the return of the income. On cumulative examination of these factual matrix, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly concluded in favour of the assessee. No interference is necessary as neither any question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this Tax Appeal. Appeal merits no consideration, the same is, therefore, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
