9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be sustained. Taking note of the fact that the assessee had not raised a dispute as regards the levy of penalty in respect of 74 days delay in filing the annual return, we hold that that the present order levying penalty as though the petitioner had opted for filing monthly return cannot be sustained. In the circumstances the original order of levying penalty dated 12.11.1997 remains undisturbed. The revised order in so far as it seeks to levy penalty in respect of monthly returns stands set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Revision) No.1525 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2012 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. Ravichandra Baabu,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Ramanathan For the Respondents : Mr. Manoharan Sundaram, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee resisted the same by contending that the calculation of number of days was wrong. The tax due as per the return was paid well before the assessment. In the circumstances, the petitioner sought for dropping of the proceedings. A revised notice was subsequently issued on 24.12.1998 pointing out that in the original notice issued, levy of penalty was worked out from 1.5.1997 itself in the absence of month war particulars. However, going by the details filed by the assessee, the same was revised, to result in a demand for a penalty to Rs.11,029/-. After hearing the assessee, penalty, sought to be levied at Rs.11,029/-, was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, has to be calculated as per Rule 15 only. When that being the case, the delay of 74 days fixed in the original order of assessment dated 12.11.1997 taking the due date as 02.5.1997 and the date of filing as 15.5.1997 is sustainable. 8. In the circumstances, the proceedings initiated to revise the order of assessment for levy of penalty as though the petitioner had opted for monthly return under Rule 18 could not be sustained. Taking note of the fact that the assessee had not raised a dispute as regards the levy of penalty in respect of 74 days delay in filing the annual return, we hold that that the present order levying penalty as though the petitioner had opted for filing monthly return cannot be sustained. In the circumstances the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
