TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (9) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n quashing the penalty imposed upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The assessment year under reference is 1963-64. Firm Messrs Sohan Lal Brij Lal (hereinafter to be referred to as " the assessee ") was the wholesale dealer in artificial silk and nylon and carried on its business at Sri Ganganagar. For the relevant assessment year, the ITO made two additions : (i) of Rs. 24,454, which he considered to be the value of the stock pledged with the bank but suppressed by the assessee from its books of account; and (ii) of Rs. 21,466, which the ITO considered as income from transactions outside the books. The ITO further found that the assessee had concealed the particulars of the income of the aforesaid tw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed an application under s. 256(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to refer to this court the question of law extracted above. Learned counsel for the revenue has urged that the Tribunal in its order dated February 20, 1968 (annex.'D') has erroneously made the following observation : " The IAC has clearly admitted that it is a case of the inability of the assessee to prove its contention that it was following an ingenious device of taking out the contents of the bales and substituting them by goods of cheaper varieties and pledging those substituted bales with the bank by showing them only the invoices of the bales. " In this connection, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the order of the IAC dated October 15, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been sold by the assessee. These bales of cloth have not been accounted for by the assessee in his closing stock. The assessee has, therefore, suppressed the closing stock to this extent. The value of such closing stock is Rs. 21,409. In the face of the documentary evidence of the bank and the fact that the assessee has not been able to prove otherwise, I hold that the assessee has deliberately concealed profit of Rs. 21,409 by understating the stock of this value. " It appears that the Tribunal, however, took a slightly different view of the matter and has recorded the following finding in this respect : " We have discussed in detail the assessee's contention about the discrepancy in the stock and have held that the assessee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference that the disputed amount represents its income. It was further observed that before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The aforesaid view was confirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC). It was held that apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee in the penalty proceedings, the department must have before it before levying penalty cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberatel....