9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustained. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee started business in various items of electrical goods and machinery including generating sets, control panels, pumps and pumping sets, electric motors etc., as a dealer and manufacturer under the name and style of ACME Engineers. While doing the business in "Electrical Goods", the purchases were made within and outside the U.P. The assessee used the Form-C and Form-31, without any authority. So, the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty under Section 10-A for Rs.67,129/- and Rs.53,643/- respectively for the assessment years under consideration. Both the appellate authorities have confirmed the same. Still not being satisfied, the assessee has filed the present revisions. With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the assessee has imported the goods. It is claimed that in Form-A, the assessee has attached the list mentioning the items for the purpose of import and re-sale. But, fact remains that without registration and without proper permission, he has imported the electrical goods and machinery and parts. In the instant case, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Sales-Tax vs. S/S. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Meerut Cantt.(supra) which is related with the exemption under 4-A of the Trade Tax Act, but the same is not the issue in hand. The case of Shyam Cold Storage vs. Sales Tax Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate authorities, then no interference is required. The said findings has not been challenged. So, it is binding of this Court as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Kantilal, 296 ITR 566 and CIT vs. D. Subramium, 296 ITR 348 (Mad.). Needless to mention that the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: (i) CTT vs. Suraj Dal Mill, 2005 (37) STJ 547 Alld.; (ii) CTT vs. Durga Dal Mill, 2006 (3) VLJ 152 Alld.; (iii) Kamla Ganpati vs. Collector of Estate Duty, 253 ITR 692 SC; and (iv) Anjani Coal Agency vs. CTT, 2005 (37) STJ 294 All. In the instant case, the assessee has used Form-C and Form-31, without any authority. From the above, it appears that the assessee has not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
