2000 (9) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee a partnership firm was engaged in execution of civil construction works. In respect of the work relatable to the Vikaspuri Project, it had indicated the value of stock and work-in-progress at Rs. 3,61,132. On examination of its 11th and 12th running bills, the AO was of the view that value of the work-in-progress was to be enhanced by Rs. 3,08,401. The assessee agreed for the enhancement of the value of work. Accordingly, the addition was made. Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were initiated. The assessee's stand was that it had agreed to the addition on the understanding that for the subsequent assessment year, an equal amount would be given as deduction. It was pointed out that there was no concealment and on the other han....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilty of any contumacious conduct or any gross or wilful neglect. Accordingly, penalty was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the return for the year 198990 was submitted after the detection of the discrepancy during the course of assessment proceedings for the preceding year, i.e., 1988-89. Therefore, the filing of the return indicating the figures for the subsequent accounting year was of no consequence. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that there was no difference in tax effect as the rate of tax was the same for both the years. Accordingly, the assessee had agreed to the addition. Mere concession to make an addition does not per se lead to an inference of guilt or acceptance of c....