9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l turnover at Rs. 2,81,000/- and every month he promptly paid the advance tax. The total advance tax paid in aggregate for the whole year i.e. for the assessment year 1998-99 is Rs. 20,854/-. The Assessing Authority on examination of the said returns, and after taking into consideration the excise information held the total taxable turnover as Rs. 6,37,335/- and levied tax of Rs. 73,294/-. As the difference between the tax due after final assessment and the tax paid by the assessee is more than 15%, the Assessing Authority levied penalty of Rs. 22,200/- as per Section 12-B(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of imposing penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3, Bangalore (her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Revisional Authority set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restored the order passed by the Assessing Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is before this court in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that what has to be taken into consideration under Section 12-B(4) of the Act is the amount actually paid as advance tax by the assessee and what is the tax which was payable in the returns which he had filed. If the difference is more than 15%, then only penalty is leviable. The tax payable on final assessment is not the consideration and therefore, he submits that the impugned order requires to be set aside. Section 12-B(4) of the Act reads as under: "[4. If at the end of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect. The actual advance tax paid and the tax payable on the final assessment is a fact to be taken into consideration and if the difference is more than 15%, then the penalty is leviable under sub-section (4) of Section 12B of the Act. The approach of the Appellate Authority was contrary to law, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the Revisional Authority was duty bound to interfere with such erroneous order which was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the order passed by the Revisional Authority is legal, valid and in accordance with law and does not call for interference of this court.
6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
