9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e emerged from the order dated July 20, 1998, passed in I.T.A. No. 432 (ASR)/1992, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue whereby upholding the action of the Com-missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that there was neither any concealment nor default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the deletion by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed the appeal, vide order dated July 20, 1998, with the observation in the concluding paragraph 6, which read as under : "6. In the case in hand the receipt of Rs. 4,70,135 is the bone contention and that receipt was shown by the assessee during 1986-87 on accrual basis after effecting the change in the method of accountancy. The learned Departmental representative was not able to point out any provision in which permission of the Assessing Officer was required in the year under consideration to effect the change of accounting system. The important fact was whether the assessee had shown the receipt or not. The assessee had shown it in the assessment year 1986-87 and the Department has accepted that receipt on accrual as assessment w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 1986-87 on accrual basis after effecting the change in the method of accounting and no permission for the change of accounting system was required to be obtained from the Assessing Officer. The Department has also accepted the receipt as the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Moreover, offer made by the assessee for adjustment of the amount in the assessment year under consideration, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, which has been considered by the Tribunal to be genuine and bona fide and, therefore, there was no question of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the teeth of these categorical findings of fact, it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
