9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (6) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, is relevant for consideration. The assessing authority fixed the turnover for that period at Rs. 46,986.55 and in addition levied a penalty of Rs. 1,515. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while confirming the assessment reduced the penalty to Rs. 909. Thereafter, there was an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Three contentions were taken before the Tribunal. The first was that the addition to the book turnover was not proper. The Tribunal went into this question and found that the defects pointed out by the assessing authority existed so that the addition was liable to be made. The second contention taken before the Tribunal was that the assessee was eligible to be assessed at the compounded rate of tax under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first objection to the order of the Tribunal is that as regards the benefit of the assessment under section 7 given by the Tribunal by its order. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the provisions of section 7(2A) relied on by the Tribunal did not justify the granting of the benefit of section 7 for the year preceding that for which the assessment was made on 13th June, 1972. As mentioned earlier, the assessment was made on 13th June, 1972, for the assessment year 1972-73. According to the Additional Government Pleader, the benefit of section 7, which was given to the assessee under the said order, could not be taken to enure for the assessment year 1971-72, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would comprehend all assessments made subsequent to the granting of the permission for any year. It is in this view that though the permission was granted for the assessment year 1972-73 on 13th June, 1972, it was held to enure for the assessment year 1971-72 also for which the assessment was completed subsequently. A careful consideration of rule 15(4A) and section 7(2A) would, in our opinion, go to show that the grant of permission by the assessing authority under section 7(2) would continue to be in force only to assessment years subsequent to that for which the permission was granted. It would not, in our opinion, be proper or reasonable to consider that the benefit of section 7, when once it is granted for a later year, would enure to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the word "suppression" as contrasted with the use of the word "omission" would go to show that the use of the word "suppression" involves a finding that there was a wilful non-disclosure. We, therefore, hold that the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal on the footing that there was no finding of wilful non-disclosure is not correct. The Tribunal has not examined the question as to whether the levy of a penalty of Rs. 909 was called for in this case, with reference to the very first year of assessment. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to go into the question of quantum of penalty and consider whether the levy of Rs. 909 was reasonable on the facts here. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed. No costs. Petition allowed and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
