TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of the Income-tax Act for calling the following questions of law said to arise out of the order passed by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, New Delhi: " (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (2) Whether the order of the Tribunal is wrong and perverse inasmuch as it igno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not gone perverse when the Tribunal has taken support from the difference in stock from the observation of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in quantum appeal and in not appreciating the observation of the Tribunal in para (8) which is as under: 'Had the goods been received as alleged, the same would have been shown as part of the closing stock of the assessee, that is not so ?'" (5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess " steel at 23% to 25%. Consequently, the addition on this account was knocked off. In respect of stock discrepancy, the appellate authority accepted the explanation of the assessee that the stock was of the goods received back out of earlier sales made to Agarwal Metal Corporation, Bombay. But since they were not settling the accounts, the goods could not be sold and were held as security. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted, there was no material on which it could, be held that it was not bona fide. It has been vehemently urged that the order of the Tribunal is illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty in the Circumstances of the case. The argument appears to be devoid of any substance. Rejection of the explanation does not render it false so as to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cancelling the penalty. Question No. (1), as such, raised by the Department does not arise. As regards questions Nos. (2) to (4), it again does not raise any question of law as the order cannot be said to be perverse only because the Tribunal did not levy penalty on the finding recorded in the assessment proceedings. Question No. (5), no doubt, is worded as a question of law. But it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
