9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 16(2) of the Act would not be attracted. According to the Revenue, the original penalty orders of the assessing officer should be restored. The assessees have filed counters for enhancement petitions filed by the department. According to the assessees the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to have deleted the entire penalty instead of sustaining 50 per cent of the penalty levied by the assessing authority. It remains to be seen that the exemption claimed by the assessees was allowed in the original assessment. The non-disclosure of turnover on the apart of the assessees came into existence because of the revised assessments made by the assessing officer. Simply because the assessees' claim for exemption was negatived by the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over and claimed exemption is correct in law ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in levying penalty on the ground but for the investigation this suppression would not have come to light is correct in law ? relating to the assessment year 1993-94. 2. The issue is as to whether the levy of penalty is admissible or not. On the facts of the case, as it is found by the assessing authority in his order, it is clear that the assessee while filing the original returns has claimed exemption in respect of certain High Sea Sales and the same was disallowed, by holding the turnover at ₹ 8,60,000/- and inflicted the penalty of ₹ 29,232/- under Section 16(2) of the Act. It was ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wilfully not disclosed if the tax due on such turnover is more than ten per cent but not more than fifty per cent of the tax paid as per the return; (c)one hundred and fifty per cent of the tax due on the assessable turnover that was wilfully not disclosed, if the tax due on such turnover is more than fifty per cent of the tax paid as per the return; (d)one hundred and fifty per cent of the tax due on the assessable turnover that was wilfully not disclosed, in the case of self-assessment referred to in sub-section (1) of section 12: Provided that no penalty under this sub-section shall be imposed unless the dealer affected has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such imposition. A reading of this would show t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
