9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer checked the accounts of the respondent for the year and finally fixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 5,38,905 to the best of his judgment for the defects noted in the accounts. He also levied a penalty of Rs. 2,985 based on the actual suppressions noticed. In the first appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained only an ad hoc addition of Rs. 20,000 and refixed the taxable turno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncement petition would lie against an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in cancelling the penalty in its entirety is not correct. In T.C. No. 18 of 1984, this Court by an order dated February 27, 1995 (State of Tamil Nadu v. K.M. Sultan Mohideen [1997] 107 STC 610) held that even against an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in cancelling the penalty in its ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient records for levy of penalty under section 12(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in deleting the penalty is in order. Accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 4.. In the result, while upholding the contention put forward by the department that an appeal will lie against the Order passed by the Appellate Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
