9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances of the case of the assessee, the penalty imposed at 10% of the outstanding demand for both the assessment years u/s 221(1) of the Act read with Section 140A(3) of the Act was just and fair and no interference in the order of learned CIT(A) is called for. - Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos.4304/Del/2013 & 4305/Del/2013, ITA Nos.4003/Del/2013 & 4004/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - G C Gupta, VP And Prashant Maharishi, AM For the Appellant : Shri O P Meena, CIT-DR For the Respondent : Shri Sunil Mathur, ITP ORDER Per Bench These cross-appeals by the Revenue and the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Rohtak dated 2nd May, 2013. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee itself at the time of filing return of income and later on also, assessee defaulted after taking upon itself the responsibility of payment through instalments. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhiwani Range, Bhiwani has passed the subject order after duly application of mind and using his discretion in fair and logical way. 4. The grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- 1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak has erred in restricting the penalty levied u/s 221(1) to 10% of the outstanding tax demand, which works to ₹ 1,04,66,483/-. 2. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, it is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee itself at the time of filing return of income and later on also, assessee defaulted after taking upon itself the responsibility of payment through instalments. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhiwani Range, Bhiwani has passed the subject order after duly application of mind and using his discretion in fair and logical way. 6. The grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 are as under:- 1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak has erred in restricting the penalty levied u/s 221(1) to 10% of the outstanding tax demand, which works to ₹ 1,65,67,048/-. 2. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 140A(3) of the Act. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A). We find that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of guar gum and has not paid any advance tax and the tax payable under self assessment tax at the time of filing of the return of income. The return was processed for the assessment year 2008-09 u/s 143(1) of the Act and the total demand including interest of ₹ 10,46,64,830/- was raised. However, the assessee has made only part payment of the demand on various dates from 20th August, 2010 to 20th January, 2011 totalling to ₹ 4,25,00,000/-. The installments given by the Department were partly honored by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the facts and circumstances of each case. The CIT(A) has passed a detailed speaking order for reducing the penalty to 10% of the outstanding demand. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee, the penalty imposed at 10% of the outstanding demand for both the assessment years u/s 221(1) of the Act read with Section 140A(3) of the Act was just and fair and no interference in the order of learned CIT(A) is called for. Accordingly, the order of learned CIT(A) for both the assessment years is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue and the assessee for both the assessment years are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee for both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
