9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return under the W.T. Act on 28th February, 1970. The same day the WTO passed an assessment order accepting the wealth returned for each of the five years. Subsequently, he issued a notice proposing to impose penalty on the assessee. In response, the assessee appeared and made several submissions as to why the returns were filed with delay. The various submissions were repelled and varying amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of this case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the penalty under s. 18(1)(a) is to be imposed with reference to the tax due from the assessee at the time of imposition of penalty ? 2. Whether, on the facts land in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling penalties of Rs. 1,735, Rs. 3,348, Rs. 5,325, Rs. 6,111 and Rs. 4,237 levied by the WTO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter part of the provision also refer to the amount of tax referred to in the earlier part, namely, the amount of tax mentioned in the demand notice issued under s. 156. In view of this decision we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the amount in question has to be determined with reference to the tax still outstanding on the date on which the WTO passes the penalty orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
