9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest. But this was also rejected by the WTO and a penalty of Rs. 4,232 was levied. 2. The assessee filed an appeal before the AAC who held that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in the filing of the return by the assessee. However, his conclusion was that the penalty had not been imposed in accordance with law, in the amount which was legally imposable. According to the AAC, the penalty should have been levied in accordance with law as it stood at the time of commission of default. The default was made on 31st July, 1975. Therefore, the penalty should be levied according to the law, as it stood on that date, i.e., at the rate of half per cent of the assessable net wealth for the entire period. At this rate it came to Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Supreme Court in the case of CWT vs. Suresh Seth (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 349 : (1981) 129 ITR 328 (SC), this question was not finally settled. According to the assessee, higher penalty should have been levied. If the WTO misunderstood the law so as to give some benefit to the assessee, it can hardly be said to be a case for throwing out the order levying the penalty altogether. If the default was there, the penalty had to be levied. If a lesser penalty has been calculated due to genuine mistake of law, the assessee may get its benefit but we cannot hold that the entire order of patently would be bad. The basic thing to determine in the default and the jurisdiction. The calculation of amount was merely as has been hold by the Gauhati High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AAC, namely, the existence of reasonable cause for further delay in filing of the return. According to him, since the issue was decided in his favour, he did not take up the matter before the Tribunal. But now that the Tribunal was going to reverse the decision of the AAC in this behalf, he should be given an opportunity to show that there was a reasonable cross-objection, to our mind under r. 27 of the Tribunal Rules, 1963, the respondent, though he may have appealed, may support the order appealed against him on any of the grounds decided against him. We, therefore, have allowed the respondent to contest the conclusion of the AAC in this behalf. 5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
