9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently recorded by the three quasi-judicial authorities. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the day, i.e., July 26, 2005? (v) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that nonmentioning of details of road permits against sale of goods, in the reply to show cause, proved mala fide intention of the appellant and that the appellant issued bill only and never issued road permits for its transportation with an intention of concealing sales, without affording any opportunity to the appellant to explain and production of documents, i.e., counterfoil of the road permit? (vi) Whether the learned Tribunal was right and justified in confirming the imposition of penalty under section 32(1) of the VAT Act, by the Commercial Tax Officer as well as its confirmation by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), in spit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which was rejected by the order dated July 18, 2006. The assessee's appeal before the Tribunal has also been rejected by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the assessee. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the show-cause notice had called upon the assessee to explain as to why the four sales by M/s. Oswal Chemical and Fertilizer Ltd., to the assessee between July 14, 2005 to July 25, 2005, have not been entered in the stock register and the connected register/documents. The assessee had shown cause. The learned assessing officer has rejected this explanation and found that the same has purposely not been entered in the stoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law." The expression "substantial question of law" has acquired definite connotation by authoritative pronouncements of courts. The present Bench had the occasion to consider the issue in the judgment dated March 30, 2011, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 657 of 2010 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation [2013] 350 ITR 189 (Patna)), wherein identical objection has been raised by the assessee. This court examined the provisions of section 260A of the Income-tax Act, as well as section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure both of which provide for appeals if substantial questions of law arise for consideration. It has been held therein that the High Court in exercise of its second appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
