9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k a view that the assessee's claim of bonafide belief about the sales tax liability was genuine and legitimate. - The Tribunal as well as CIT (Appeals) has given satisfactory, cogent and convincing reasons for setting aside the penalty order – Order of the tribunal deleting the penalty maintained. - 41 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2009 - Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J. and Hon'ble S.K.Gupta, J. Petitioner's Counsels - S.C. , A Kumar , A N Mahajan , B Agarwal , G Krishna , P Krishna , R.K. Upadhyay and S Chopra Respondent's Counsel - R. S. Agarwal and S.D. Singh JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Gupta, J. - The present appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax act ( hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther a refund was granted to it. A second revised return was filed on 28-3-1989 wherein the appellant included an amount of Rs.1,30,65,719/- for the first time and requested that additional tax on this amount may be realised from the refund of assessment year 1986-87. The amount of Rs.1,30,65,719/- represents sales tax liability disallowed under section 43B of the IT Act. After completion of the regular assessment, the assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 273(2)(aa) of the Act and vide order dated 06-3-1992 imposed a penalty of Rs.4,21,230/- 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 06-3-1992, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar (in short "CIT(Appeals"), who cancelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid. The item on which the issue is to be decided is the sales tax liability of Rs.1,30,65,719/-. It is an admitted fact that this amount was realised by the appellant in the last month of the accounting year and was shown payable in the balance sheet. The assessing authority has held that this item should have been paid accordingly under the provisions Section 43B of the Act and since the appellant had failed to do so,he was liable for penalty under section 273(2)(aa) of the Act. 11. The assessing authority in the penalty order has mentioned right from the assessment year 1984-85 , the sales tax liability was being disallowed in the assessee own case, therefore, assessee was fully aware about the treatment of the sales tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belief about the sales tax liability was genuine and legitimate. The Tribunal as well as CIT (Appeals) has given satisfactory, cogent and convincing reasons for setting aside the penalty order and had analysed the matter in detail and arrived at the conclusion that the assessee acted bonafidely in believing that sales tax liability was not includible in the total income and on that belief he did not include the same in the sales tax estimate. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence and material available on record and is neither perverse nor based on extraneous consideration. It is also notable that second revised return was filed on 28-3-1989 in which the assessee included the amount of Rs.1,30,65,719/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
