9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 32 of the Income Tax Act simultaneously - appellants filed revised income tax return and reversed the depreciation claimed by them – Held that:- error was bonafide and there was absolutely no intention to avail or take wrong credit, as soon as the omission was found, remedial steps were taken without any question, penalty on the appellant reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately the appellants filed revised income tax return and reversed the depreciation claimed by them. The income tax returns filed by them have been accepted and assessed.Therefore, the main ground for reversal of CENVAT credit does not exist and in the impugned order the Commissioner has accepted this and dropped the demand. However, he has imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs which is unwarranted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri.-Bang.) to support his contention that penalty is imposable. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the decision in Abhishek Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. cannot be applied to the present case since in that case the omission was found out by the assessee themselves and remedial action taken by them. In the case of Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd. there is no discussion abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consider that, in this case, the error was bonafide and there was absolutely no intention to avail or take wrong credit. Further, as soon as the omission was found, remedial steps were taken without any question and having regard to all the circumstances we consider that a nominal penalty would be sufficient. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty on the appellant from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
