|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1456 Records
-
2024 (1) TMI 1156
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appellant being Director of M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd Supplied the raw material clandestinely to M/s. Silver Techno cast who inturn manufactured and cleared their final products clandestinely - witnesses were not cross-examined - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From the statement of partner of M/s. Silver Techno Cast it is clear that though the appellant companies M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd has been stated as supplier of the goods but as regards the supplies made without payment of duty the name of M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd is not appearing which shows that all the supply is made by appellant’s company is under invoice and no clandestine removal was made. It is found that though the employee of the appellant company admitted to supply the goods but no quantity, value or payment thereof was brought on record as evidence. Therefore, mere verbal admission will not help the revenue.
The appellant’s company M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd is an excisable unit liable to pay excise duty it is worth to note that despite making charge that the appellant company has supplied the goods without issuing invoice which means without payment of duty no action was taken by the department for payment of duty from M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd This also strengthen the case of the appellant that no clandestine goods removal of the M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd was established.
It is further found that when the appellant has seriously objected the charge of supply of goods by M/s. Senor Metals without issuing invoice to M/s. Silver Techno cast the adjudicating authority was duty bound to cross examine the employee of the M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd to admit his statement as evidence which is required under Section 9 (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 without cross examine the witness his statement cannot be relied - the department could not establish case of removal of goods by M/s. Senor Metal Pvt Ltd Without issuing invoices to M/s. Silver techno cast. Accordingly, there is no case of abetment of evasion of duty by the present appellant. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1155
Clandestine removal - suppression of production, under valuation and clandestine clearance of sponge iron - demand confirmed on the basis of computer printouts seized from the Appellant’s premises - under valuation - difference between RG-1, Daily Production and Consumption of Material Report and Daily Stock Tally Report - penalties.
Demand of Rs.32,36,758/- has been confirmed on the basis of the details available in the computer print-out - HELD THAT:- The Appellant stated that the computer print-out recovered from their office does not belong to them. It belonged to one Mr.Sanjay Bhalotia, a trader having business relationship with the Appellant. It is found that the said Sanjay Bhalotia through an affidavit dated 24.01.2008 claimed that those papers belonged to him and he had inadvertently left those papers on the table of Nimananda Pradhan on 19.05.2006 when he had visited the Appellant’s Office about an hour before the search by DGCEI - the statement dated 18.02.2009 has no evidentiary value as the Appellant has not been informed about the contents of the statement. Without sharing it with the Appellant, it cannot be used against him. Accordingly, the statement dated 18.02.2009 cannot be taken to into cognizance.
Demands of Rs.32,36,758/- and Rs 3,37,080/- have been worked out on the basis of the details available in the computer sheets recovered from the office of the Appellant - HELD THAT:- The department has not followed the mandate under section 36B and the author of the entries made in the computer printout has not been identified. Accordingly, it is observed that the computer sheets recovered cannot be relied upon to work out the duty liability on the allegation of clandestine removal. As the demands mentioned at Sl. no (i) and (ii) of para 2 has been confirmed solely based on the data available in the computer print outs, the demand of Rs. 32,36,758/- and Rs 3,37,080/-confirmed only on the basis of computer print-outs seized from the Appellant’s premises is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside.
Demand of Rs. 18,37,986/- confirmed on the basis of difference between RG-1, Daily Production and Consumption of Material Report and Daily Stock Tally Report - HELD THAT:- In this case, the shortages have been arrived at on the basis of the registers maintained by the Appellant themselves. The reasons for the discrepancies have to be explained by the Appellant only, as they are the authors of the entries made in the Registers. However, the Appellant could not give any valid explanation for the shortages. Thus, the discrepancies in the registers itself is sufficient to corroborate the clandestine clearance. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 18,37,986/-confirmed on the basis of difference between RG-1, Daily Production and Consumption of Material Report and Daily Stock Tally Report, is sustainable. The Appellant is liable to pay this duty along with applicable interest. As the Appellant has suppressed the actual production with an intention to evade payment of duty, they are liable for penalty equivalent to the duty evaded under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Penalty on the Director, Sh.C.S.Grewal - HELD THAT:- It is observed that only part of the demand confirmed in the impugned order is held to be sustainable. Hence, the penalty can be imposed only in proportion to the demand confirmed. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the Director Shri. C.S. Grewal from Rs. 10,00,000/- reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Penalty imposed on Mr. Nimananda Pradhan, Manager - HELD THAT:- The incriminating documents recovered have been found to be not reliable and the demand confirmed based on the document has been held as not sustainable. Hence, the penalty imposed on the Manager on that basis of these documents also will not survive. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on Shri. Nimananda Pradhan is set aside.
Penalty imposed on Sh. R.S. Pandey, DGM, as the head of production - HELD THAT:- It is observed that he is an employee of the company. His duty is to carry out the work as ordered by the management. He has accounted the production as advised by the Director of the company. In a family based private limited company, the Director is the ultimate beneficiary of the illegal activities. The Director has already been held responsible for the short accountal of sponge iron and penalty has been imposed on him. Thus, Mr. R.S.Pandey, DGM being employee of the company is not liable for penalty and accordingly the penalty imposed on him is set aside.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1154
Maintainability of Revision application GVAT Tribunal - Cancellation of registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - whether the Revision Application filed by the petitioner under Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act would be maintainable before the Tribunal when the order for cancellation of registration is passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act? - HELD THAT:- It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner passed the order under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act under the delegated powers of the Commissioner. That means, the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the powers of Commissioner under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act. Therefore, considering the provision of Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act, any application made to the Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner is to be treated as Revision and would be maintainable before the Tribunal only.
The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 27(5)(i) read with Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act is not maintainable in view of provision of Section 73 of the Act because, as per Section 73, an Appeal of every original order not being an order mentioned in Section 74 passed under the Act is maintainable - In the facts of the case, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not an original order but is a revisional order under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act and therefore, Appeal under Section 73 would not be maintainable, but only Revision before the Tribunal under Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act would be maintainable.
The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for considering the Revision Application No. 59 of 2021 on merits - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1153
Grant of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - criminal conspiracy to cheat the consortium of 17 banks led by Union Bank of India - induced the consortium banks to sanction huge loans - siphoning off of the funds - investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending, though the report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 (Chargesheet) against respondents along with the other accused was filed within the prescribed time limit - cognizance of the offence was taken by the special court before the consideration of the application of the respondents seeking default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.
HELD THAT:- There cannot be any disagreement with the well settled legal position that the right of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not only a statutory right but is a right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an indefeasible right, nonetheless it is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan or the chargesheet, and does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of. Once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to the merits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to the accused after the filing of the challan.
In SURESH KUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAIN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [2013 (2) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT] the appellant-accused had sought default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that though the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated time, the cognizance was not taken by the court, for want of sanction to prosecute the accused. The court dispelling the claim of the accused held an investigating authority fails to file the charge-sheet within the stipulated period, the accused is entitled to be released on statutory bail. In such a situation, the accused continues to remain in the custody of the Magistrate till such time as cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, when the said court assumes custody of the accused for purposes of remand during the trial in terms of Section 309 CrPC. The two stages are different, but one follows the other so as to maintain a continuity of the custody of the accused with a court.
There remains no shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175 (5). As settled in the afore-stated case, it is not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated.
The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him. Once however, a chargesheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused - Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.
There are no hesitation in holding that the chargesheet having been filed against the respondents-accused within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly committed by them, the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that the investigation qua other accused was pending. Both, the Special Court as well as the High Court having committed serious error of law in disregarding the legal position enunciated and settled by this Court, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1152
Dismissal from service - Disciplinary proceedings against police officer - appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case - Involvement in Customs case of Smuggling of heroin - multiple proceedings - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the appellant deliberately kept away from the inquiry proceedings. He was aware of the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were going on but elected to stay away. He did not report for duty from 23rd February, 1989 till the order of dismissal from service was passed against him by the respondent No. 4 - Disciplinary Authority on 20th December, 1991. It took the appellant seven long years to approach the Appellate Authority against the dismissal order passed against him sometime in the year 1998.
The factum of the appellant having been discharged in the criminal case would not be of any material consideration as the Disciplinary Authority1 had taken action against the appellant for remaining absent from duty which is clearly brought out from the record.
The present appeal is dismissed as meritless while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1151
Grant of permission to respondent No. 1 to travel abroad subject to certain conditions.
The respondent No. 1 submits that in terms of the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 traveled abroad and has also returned back to India. By a further order dated 18th December, 2023 in Misc. Application No. C.C.No.4767/Misc./2023, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai has further relaxed the conditions which were imposed by earlier orders.
HELD THAT:- Nothing survives in this petition - The petition stands disposed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1150
Evasion of tax - Failure to produce the e-Way Bill in time due to certain technical difficulties - whether or not there was any actual intent to evade tax on part of the petitioner? - HELD THAT:- In the case of VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another [2018 (5) TMI 455 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], while dealing with a situation where Part- B of the e-Way Bill was not generated, this Court observed that the petitioner therein was supposed to fill up Part- B of the e- Way Bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods were loaded in a vehicle, and it failed to do so. However, there was no ill intention at the hands of the petitioner therein to evade tax, since the documents accompanying the goods contained all the relevant details.
In the instant case before me, although the petitioner failed to generate the e-Way Bill on time, the Tax Invoices issued contained all the relevant details including the detail of the vehicle transporting the goods. Moreover, the CGST and the SGST were already charged by SAIL. Therefore, no intention to evade tax is evident in this case.
In the present factual matrix, it is clear that the goods were accompanied by the tax invoices. Furthermore, the tax invoices contained the details of the vehicle that was transporting the goods. It is further to be noted that one e-Way Bill was generated before the detention and one subsequent to the detention, but before passing of the order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Under these circumstances, there does not appear to be any intention to evade the tax - the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to mere technical mistakes that may have arisen, without there being any intention to evade tax.
The impugned orders in the instant case are a result of the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 3 exceeding their jurisdiction and not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirement of the law where it was meant to adminiter. Therefore, a writ of certiorari is warranted in the instant case.
Accordingly, let there be a writ of certiorari issued against the order dated February 21, 2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the order dated October 20, 2019 passed by the Respondent No. 3. The said orders are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1149
Scope of the Notification No.53/2023 extending the time limit for filing an appeal u/s 107 - time to file appeal has been extended till January 31, 2024 - it is submitted that this notification only deals with the orders passed u/s 73 and 74 of the Act and does not take into account the orders passed u/s 129 and 130 of the Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is not in a position to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to include Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in the said notification. However, the Government can very well consider adding these two Sections in the said notification, so that the benefit that has been provided for the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act can be extended to Sections 129 and 130 of the Act.
In the light of the above, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, is directed to look into this aspect of the matter at the earliest - The matter is adjourned sine die with liberty granted to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to mention the same at the appropriate time.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1148
Levy of Penalty - Failure to update the E-way bill on change of vehicle after breakdown - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The imposition of penalties within the realm of tax laws should not be based solely on insignificant technical errors devoid of any financial consequences. The foundational principle guiding this approach is the commitment to maintain a tax system that is characterized by fairness and justice, where the severity of penalties corresponds to the gravity of the offence committed. While penalties serve a pivotal role in ensuring compliance with tax laws, legal frameworks stress the importance of establishing the actual intent to evade taxes as a prerequisite for their just imposition. This emphasis underscores the critical need to differentiate between inadvertent technical errors and purposeful attempts to circumvent tax obligations.
The burden of proof falls squarely on tax authorities to demonstrate the genuine intent to evade tax before penalizing taxpayers. This safeguard is indispensable to shield individuals and entities from punitive measures arising from honest mistakes, administrative errors, or technical discrepancies that lack any malicious intent. The fundamental principle requiring an intent to evade tax for the imposition of penalties is crucial for preserving the fairness and integrity of taxation systems. In order to uphold a balanced and equitable approach to tax enforcement, it is imperative to recognize and acknowledge the distinction between technical errors and intentional evasion.
The orders impugned in this writ petition are not sustainable in law wherein the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction and have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the statutes. Accordingly, the order September 13, 2018 and October 3, 2019 are quashed and set-aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1147
Seeking quashing of show cause notice - seeking restoration and revival of GST registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Respondents shall furnish to the petitioner the entire material available with the respondents in support of the show cause notice on or before 08.02.2024.
It is clarified that in case petitioner is aggrieved by any further order, it would be entitled to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1146
Validity of assessment order - imposition of tax, interest and penalty - petitioner submits that the petitioner be given an opportunity to contest the claim especially considering that the claim is confined to a difference in turnover as between Form GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B - HELD THAT:- The petitioner did not respond either to the intimation in Form GST-DRC- 01A or to the show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01. In addition, the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. The explanation of the petitioner is that the consultant did not keep the petitioner informed. The consultant, in turn, states that the notices were not available on the tab relating to regular returns and were instead accessible only through the tab relating to additional notices.
The fact remains that a registered person carrying on a small business did not have the opportunity to respond to the claim made by the tax department with regard to the discrepancy between the returns in Form GSTR-2B and Form GSTR-3B. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference.
The matter is remanded for re-consideration. It is made clear that the petitioner will not have an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and the opportunity would be limited to participation in the proceedings before the assessing officer and making any submissions in relation thereto - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1145
Suspension of the GST registration - SCN issued on the alleged ground that there is violation of Rule 86B of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice within one week. and on such reply being filed, respondent shall dispose of the show cause notice by a speaking order within two weeks thereafter. Respondent shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before disposal of the show cause notice.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1144
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.
The order of cancellation is modified to the extent that the same shall operate with effect from 01.02.2019, i.e., the date on which the petitioner discontinued the business - the petitioner shall furnish all requisite details to the respondents as required to be submitted by the petitioner in respect of letter dated 07.03.2020 to enable the respondents to ascertain if any demand is liable raised against the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1143
Seeking a direction to the respondent to revoke suspension of the GST Registration of the petitioner - seeking also to set aside SCN - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to file a detailed response to the show cause notice and provide all requisite details and information, as sought for by the department within two weeks. On such information being provided, respondent shall dispose of show cause notice by a speaking order within two weeks thereafter. Respondent shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before disposal of the show cause notice.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1142
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioner submitted that the order for cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COMMERCIAL TAX (GST) LKO. AND 2 OTHERS [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated January 18, 2023 and the appellate order dated October 12, 2023 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1141
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- During the hearing an affidavit has been handed over by learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court wherein, it is stated that petitioner has not carried out any business since last Sale Invoice which was issued on 28.01.2019. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Petitioner has filed GST returns till March, 2021.
Further, in the affidavit petitioner has undertaken to file all the statutory returns pending under the GST till order of cancellation and also to discharge any liabilities on account of tax, interest and late fees within two weeks of opening up of the portal enabling the petitioner to make necessary compliances. The affidavit is taken on record. Petitioner is bound down to the affidavit.
The order of cancellation is modified to the extent that the same shall operate with effected from 28.01.2019, i.e., the date on which the petitioner is alleged to have last carried on business - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1140
Validity of Audit u/s 65 and Rule 101 of the GST - Violation of principles of natural justice - it is submitted that petitioner had filed reply dated 19.12.2023 to the discrepancy notice under Rule 101 (4) of the APGST/CGST Rules, 2017 served on the petitioner on 12.12.2022, but without considering the same the Final Audit Report was submitted - HELD THAT:- Sub Rule (4) of Rule 101, provides that the proper officer may inform the registered person of the discrepancies noticed, if any, as observed in the audit and the said person may file his reply. The proper officer shall finalise the findings of the audit after due consideration of the reply furnished. In view of Rule 101(4), it is evident that after informing about the discrepancies noticed, if the person files the reply, the same is to be considered and on such consideration, the findings of the Final Audit Report are to be furnished. Here, it is now not disputed that the petitioner filed the reply and the same was not considered while finalizing the findings of the audit. The Final Audit Report is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the statutory provisions.
The impugned Final Audit Report deserves to be quashed. The writ petition deserves to be allowed with further directions to the respondents. Any further proceeding if initiated, based on the impugned Final Audit Report, can also not stand.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1139
Validity of Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - queries raised by the AO in the course of the original assessing proceedings - Petitioner, objects to the reopening of assessment essentially on the ground that Petitioner had provided information regarding all the queries raised by the AO and it is only after satisfying himself regarding all the information that the original assessment order was passed. He contends that there are no reasons to believe that income has escaped the assessment and the reopening is based on a mere change of opinion - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that reopening of assessment proceedings on the basis of escapement of income is not permissible on the ground of change of opinion of the AO. Once a query is raised during assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the AO while completing the assessment.
It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query itself. This Court in its decision in the matter of Aroni Commercials Limited [2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has expounded the law in this regard.
In the present case, the queries raised by the AO in the course of the original assessing proceedings followed by replies given by the Petitioner clearly show that the entire material was before the AO and applying his mind to the said material, the AO has passed the Assessment Order dated 20th July 2018. The statement of accounts regarding details of expenses and investment relating to earning of exempt income was accepted by the AO. The letter dated 4th August 2017 issued by Petitioner alongwith the financial statements, on record indicates that all queries raised by the AO by its letter dated 19th July 2017 were answered.
In the Assessment Orders u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15 the returned income was accepted as assessed income and there were no disallowances.
Thus the ‘reasons to believe’ forming part of Section 147 of the Act in this case, clearly points to the fact that the reopening of assessment was based on the information accessible by the AO. There is no tangible material available with the AO to justify reopening of assessment of income. Considering all no hesitation in holding that the reopening of assessment of Petitioner’s income by the AO is only on the basis of a change in his opinion, which is impermissible in law. Petition thus deserves to be allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1138
Immunity from imposing penalty u/s 270AA - Penalty u/s 270A for failure to file the return of income (ITR) - under reported income - Period of limitation - whether the facts and circumstances justify exemption from imposition of penalty and whether the application in such regard was filed in time?
HELD THAT:- Delay is about one month beyond the stipulated period - By taking into account the fact that the gross total income disclosed by the petitioner in the return of income was accepted in order dated 09.03.2023 and the fact that the total tax liability of Rs. 3,68,906/-, as disclosed in the return of income, was also accepted in order dated 09.03.2023, this is a fit case to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the application for immunity from imposition of penalty. Therefore, the delay is condoned.
Under reporting of income - As per clause Sub section 6 (a) of Section 270A the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation, which is accepted as bona fide is liable to be excluded provided all material facts were disclosed. This case appears to fall within the scope of clause (a) of sub-section 6 of Section 270 A. In any event, since the order rejecting the application for immunity from imposition of penalty warrants interference, the consequential order is also liable to be quashed.
For reasons set out above, the impugned orders are quashed. As a consequence, the first respondent is directed to re-consider the application for immunity from imposition of penalty on merits by taking into account the observations set out in this order.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1137
Compounding application u/s 279 - Period of limitation with regard to compounding of offence - exclusion of time held that the period running from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022[Covid period] - HELD THAT:- Neither sub-section (2) nor any of the other sub-sections of Section 279 prescribe a period of limitation with regard to compounding of offences. By taking note of this aspect, the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 14.06.2019 were quashed by this Court.
At this point of time, the said judgment holds the field. Even otherwise, the complaint was lodged on 03.01.2019. A period of about fifteen months lapsed between the date of complaint and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. If the period excluded under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. the period running from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, is excluded the compounding application filed on 19.05.2022 would be within the period prescribed in the guidelines of the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
For reasons set out above, the conclusions recorded in paragraph 2 of the impugned order are unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. As a corollary, the compounding application of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of on merits. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the compounding application within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
............
|
9911796707
