https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311044 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, condoning a delay of 1976 days in filing. The assessee learned of the prosecution case only in May/June 2021 upon receiving the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's order. The compounding application was rejected in January 2022, causing the delay. The tribunal found no concealment of income regarding excess stock under Section 69B, noting that books were not updated at the time of search and physical stocks of multiple firms were mixed at the same premises. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside as the excess stock differences were neutralized across related entities. en-us Fri, 26 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311044 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, condoning a delay of 1976 days in filing. The assessee learned of the prosecution case only in May/June 2021 upon receiving the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's order. The compounding application was rejected in January 2022, causing the delay. The tribunal found no concealment of income regarding excess stock under Section 69B, noting that books were not updated at the time of search and physical stocks of multiple firms were mixed at the same premises. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside as the excess stock differences were neutralized across related entities. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311044