9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial particulars have been left to be filled in then there is every apprehension that it could be reused and as such penalty could be imposed. On perusal of the finding of the lower authorities in the instant case, it transpires that even the bill no. and date were left blank, in the declaration Form ST 18-A, which, in my view, in the light of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court(2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court) are material particulars. Therefore, once, these columns were left unattended or to be filled in, in my view, the AO was well justified in coming to the conclusion that Form was incomplete and the goods were being carried on with an intention of evasion of tax - Decided in favour of Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f, otherwise bill, builty and other documents were available and admittedly found to be correct. However, penalty of ₹ 46,293/- was imposed by the assessing officer discarding the explanation so offered. 3. Dis-satisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short 'AO'), the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the DC (A), who vide order dated 24.5.2001 deleted the penalty imposed by the learned AO and accepted the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee finding that there was no intention of evasion of tax and all the supporting documents proved. He further held that merely because some columns remained to be filled in, it does not entitle AO to impose penalty and the penalty was deleted. 4. Dissatisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under Section 78(5) of the Act. He contended that admittedly other bills, vouchers and other material found was in order by Anti Evasion Wing and nothing adverse was found, therefore, merely because of clerical error, few columns remained unattended and unfilled, will not entitle the revenue to impose penalty. He further contended that both the authorities i.e. DC(A) and Tax Board after appreciation of evidence have rightly come to the conclusion that there was no case of imposition of penalty, as it was a bonafide error. 7. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities. 8. In my view, the penalty has rightly been impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
