2016 (9) TMI 1545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this Court reported in RAINBOW FOUNDATIONS LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) (FAC) , T. NAGAR (SOUTH) ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI [ 2009 (10) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that under section 16[2] of the Act, the assessing authority had not jurisdiction to impose penalty by a separate and independent order. Even if a statute has brought in a new section by way of section 12 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner challenges the impugned Assessment Order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the respondent herein for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 3. The short issue which falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the impugned order could have been passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty by way of a separate order. 4. The learned counsel on either side would fairly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relevant, could not be accepted by any standard of reasoning. Therefore, the penalty levied through an independent order under section 16[2] of the Act was to be set aside. 5. By applying the above decision to the facts of the instant case, it has to be necessarily held that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X