Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not justified for addition on closing stock valuation. No clear findings on concealment. Assessee's explanation deemed bona fide.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) related to the addition of closing stock. The AO levied penalty on an addition u/s 36(1)(iii) that was deleted by the CIT(A), showing a lack of application of mind. Both authorities failed to provide reasons for considering the closing stock valuation addition as concealment. The Tribunal found no basis for concluding that the addition constituted inaccurate particulars, citing legal precedent. The Tribunal examined the valuation difference in closing stock, noting the assessee's justifications were not refuted by the Revenue. As the explanation was deemed bona fide, the penalty was deemed unsustainable, ruling in favor of the assessee.....