9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (6) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of certain anamath accounts recovered during an inspection of their place of business on 17th July, 1972, the assessment was revised under s. 16 of the Act and a turnover of Rs. 5,36,642.92 at 3% was brought to tax net. A penalty of Rs. 24,148 was also levied under s. 16(2) of the Act being the maximum penalty at 1 1/2 times the tax of Rs. 16,099.28 evaded by the Appellatnts. In the first appeal before the Appllate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) III, Madras City, the assessment and levy of penalty was confirmed. Hence the present appeal in TA. No. 274/74 is filed before this Tribunal. 3. For the assessment year 1971-72, the appellants were finally assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 7,12,802.98 as against Rs. 3,40,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire inclusion of the suppressed turnover and the levy penalty at the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants gave up the dispute regarding the turnover aspect. He has only pleaded for leniency in the matter of levy of penalty. He has contended that the maximum levy is not justified on the ground that the finding of the assessing authority that the suppression of turnover was deliberate and intentional in order to evade tax; that in any view the penalty leviable should have some relation to the gravity of the offence and conduct of the offender; that the law has prescribed maximum penalty not merely for the purpose of levying the same in every case and that the quantum of penalty should not be oppr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e difference between the two are taken to be suppressions. These transactions have been not brought to the regular accounts. It is also seen that the appellants did not attempt to reconcile the discrepancies neither before the assessment stage nor at the stage of first appeal. Even before us they did not make any attempt to show that the clandestine transactions have in fact been brought to accounts and disclosed to the department. Even though a vain attempt was made before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding taxability of the transactions, this has also been given up before us, confining only to the quantum of penalty levied. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessments made for all the three years by including the suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds and the tax itself may not have been paid, the authorities levy half the maximum penalty as a matter of course. Of course, the finding of wilfulness in the sense that there had been a planned and systematic endeavour to evade the tax on the part of the appellants would justify the levy of penalty. But it is difficult to say that it will justify maximum penalty. If such pre-planned evasion is absent and such evasion had not been the result of any dishonest or other wise conscious attempt to evade the tax, the penalty itself may not be leviable. We have therefore no doubt that it is not correct to say that the maximum penalty must be imposed in all the cases under consideration and in effect every case of tax evasion. The authorities hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
