TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment, in the case of CIT Vs Sachidanand Pulse Mills [2014 (12) TMI 750 - Gujarat high Court] holds so. Penalty in respect of declining deduction for write off due to joint venture having been aborted, we find that the Tribunal has confirmed the quantum addition. While doing so, the Tribunal, vide order had observed that "the resolution also passed after the financial year by the appellant and no copy of MOU dated 15.11.2003 has been furnished before any of the authorities below". The aspect regarding joint venture having been aborted was rejected on technical grounds. Such a loss, if it is indeed found to be on aborted joint venture, is generally allowable. It is also important to bear in mind that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lore display unit 53,348/- (iii) Write off of advances 32,23,000/- 3. It was in this backdrop that the Assessing Officer required the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) not be imposed by treating the above income as concealed income and the income for which inaccurate particulars are filed in respect of which no explanation has been given by the assessee. It was submitted by the assessee that the penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance till the disposal of related appeal by the Tribunal. This plea was rejected by the Assessing Officer. He thus proceeded to impose the penalty, and, while doing so, he also observed as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant whether the difference is on account of value or quantity. Appellant s counsel could not explain the difference on account of higher valuation of stock given to the bank. There are several decisions in which it is held that if the quantity disclosed to the bank is more, it amounts to unexplained stock and addition on account of the same is justified. Since appellant was not able to explain the difference in stock with proper explanation, the addition is deemed to be concealed income as per explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of IT act. Again it is not the case of two opinions. Penalty levied by the assessing officer on this addition is accordingly confirmed. Penalty levied by the AO on appellant's claim of business loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 7. We find that so far as addition in respect of difference in value of stock in stock statement vis-a-vis accounts of the assessee is concerned, it proceeds on the basis that difference between these two figures represents concealed income. That view is not entirely free from doubt as it is a ground reality that bank statements at times reflect inflated value of stocks so as to avail higher credit limits. There is nothing more than bank statement figure which is put against the assessee. Whatever be the merits of upholding addition on such facts, in our considered view, an addition of this nature cannot be visited with penalty proceedings. Hon ble jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
