2007 (2) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.7.2003 made in ITA No.1337/Mds/1996 for the assessment year 1992-93, and is admitted on the following question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in  holding that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by way of understatement of the valu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... admitted and the actual value and brought the difference amount, viz., Rs.11,70,047/-, to assessment. In view of the suppression in the sale of eggs and the difference in the value of the closing stock, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, penalty of a sum of Rs.3,17,318/- was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).  Hence, the present appeal raising the substantial question of law referred to above. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that there was wide difference between the value admitted and the actual val....