9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 1962-63. The petitioner is a dealer in fertilisers and cement. On 19th July, 1963, his premises were inspected and certain incriminating material was seized. For the said assessment year, the total turnover was determined at Rs. 4,05,520 which included the turnover added on the basis of the seized material. Penalty was levied at one and half times the tax, which was the maximum permissible as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., one pertains to the assessment and the other to the levy of penalty. Shri S.R. Ashok, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended in T.R.C. No. 19 of 1980 that the Tribunal has ignored the partial relief which was granted by the first appellate authority by its order dated 16th January, 1970, and that, in any event, the relief so granted cannot be ignored or excluded from consideration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to tax, or has been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or where the licence fee or registration fee has escaped levy or has been levied at too low a rate, the assessing authority may, at any time within a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax or the licence fee or registration fee relates, assess the tax payable on the turnover which has escaped assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in determining the quantum of penalty, the conduct and the attitude of the assessee are relevant. The levy of penalty and that too, at the maximum rate is not automatic nor a matter of course. In view of the fact that there is no finding of wilfulness or contumaciousness on the part of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice would be served by reducing the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
