9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced IT Return for calculation of the tax - appellant is not disputing the demand, therefore, the demand of tax is upheld - taking into account of levy of tax on the initial stage, the imposition of penalty u/s 78 is not proper - penalty u/s 76 & 77 is upheld - 173 of 2008-SM (BR) - 1248 OF 2008-SM(BR) - Dated:- 6-8-2008 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Return for the financial year 2002-03 and 2003-2004 and on the basis of such records, demand of tax was confirmed. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs.95,410/- and imposed penalty of Rs.1,90,820/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, Rs.200/- per day under Section 76, which comes to Rs.95,410/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/- per Return totalling to Rs.5,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they paid the tax, but no penalty should be imposed. 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Appellant suppressed the entire facts, which was discovered by the Revenue as evident from the show cause notice. He also relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Krishna Poduval (supra), it has been held that the person, who is guilty of suppression deserves no sympathy under Section 80 of the Act. In the present case, I do no find any material that that the Appellant suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of tax. 5. In view of the above discussion, penalty under Sections 76 and 77 is upheld. It is decided by the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
