9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is more than 15%. This error committed by the Appellate Authority was noticed by the Revisional Authority and in exercise of the powers under Section 22-A(1) of the Act corrected the order passed by the Appellate Authority - No reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Authority - decided against Assessee. - STA No.138/2009 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2014 - Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellate Authority while setting aside the order of imposing penalty, took into consideration two payments i.e., ₹ 70,000/- and ₹ 26,000/-, which were paid by two cheques dated 14.02.2005 and 29.03.2006 respectively. The Appellate Authority, however, over looked the fact that ₹ 26,000/- were paid after the date of assessment. In the present case, we are concerned only with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining, whether the difference is more than 15% as contemplated by subsection (4) of Section 12-B, committed a factual error in adding the amount of ₹ 26,000/- as advance payment. In our opinion, this amount was admittedly paid after the assessment order and was wrongly added to as advance tax to determine whether the difference of the amount is more than 15%. This error committed by the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
