Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. versus M/S KALIA SWEET SUPPLIER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. v. M/S Kalia Sweet Supplier - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 229 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 17110 (3 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27.10.1998 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has deleted the penalty of Rs.80,392/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

We have heard Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. We have also perused the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. From a perusal of the order, we find that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been deleted on the ground that there was some variations in the value of the stock hypothecated with the bank and as has been shown by the assessee before the Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer has brought no material to show as to whether the Bank Officer had carried out physical verification of stocks hypothecated with the Bank and if any such verification was done by the Bank Officer, what was the result of such physical verification. Further, it is also not clear from the assessment order as to whether the loan availed by the assessee was on hypothecation of stocks or loan was advanced on the basis of pledge. The stock statement furnished to the Bank was on an estimated basis and in view of divergent views in relation to sustainability of addition made under such facts and circumstances, no penalty is called for. The explanation submitted on behalf of the assessee raises preponderance of probabilities. In our opinion, the appeal do not give rise to any substantial question of law.

The appeal is dismissed in limine.

3.10.2006

vkp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.