Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1978 (7) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mbay, Ludhiana, Amritsar, etc. On going through the accounts relevant for the material assessment, namely, assessment year 1956-57, the ITO found that on June 25, 1955, the assessee had a stock of 8,189 lbs. of yarn valued at Rs. 72,919-10-0 in the Ludhiana branch. This was as per the stock book of that branch. The ITO, it appears, had obtained information that on the same date, viz., June 25, 1955, the assessee had pledged 76 bales of yarn valued at Rs. 1,28,175 with the Ludhiana branch of the Punjab National Bank for securing an overdraft. This information was obtained from the bank. According to the ITO, each bale of mill-packed yarn consisted of 200 lbs. of yarn. From the stock book of the assessee, the ITO inferred that the assessee co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bearing in mind the failure of the assessee to prove satisfactorily the exact arrangement with the bank and a broad view of the matter. In view of the concealment of particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 12,500, the penalty proceedings were adopted and the I.T. authorities levied a penalty Rs. 8,750. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the view that any concealment within the meaning of  s. 28(1)(c) had been established. The Tribunal pointed out that the addition of Rs. 12,500 was made by assessing the income of the assessee, because the assessee-firm did not explain wherefrom it got the amount required for purchasing the excess stock. The Tribunal took the view that, so far as the question of imposing the penalty was concer....