9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered, except to state that the penalty is levied for willful non-disclosure of turnover. It is true that the petitioner has not responded to the notice dated 06.01.2017 - However, considering the fact that the petitioner has already discharged the tax and interest liability, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner, more particularly, when he has succeeded before the Appellate Authority in getting the matter remitted back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue afresh. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue on the penalty once again, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of ₹ 11,05,037/-. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that there was no intentional or wilful sales omission on the part of the petitioner and thus, imposing penalty cannot be sustained, more particularly, when the petitioner has paid the tax due and interest immediately, on receipt of notice of proposal itself. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 05.01.2016, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider the issue and pass orders after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed once again by confirming the penalty of ₹ 11,05,037/-. The Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty. Insofar as levy of tax and interest is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner has discharged his liability. Therefore, the only dispute is with regard to the imposition of penalty. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, such imposition of penalty would arise only when there is a wilful non-disclosure of turnover and to that effect a specific finding should be rendered by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order. In this case, I find that no such findings rendered, except to state that the penalty is levied for willful non-disclosure of turnover. It is true that the petitioner has not responded to the notice dated 06.01.2017. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has already discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
