TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chindies. During the three assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the assessee filed monthly returns as required under section 12-B(1) of the Act. He also paid tax calculated on the basis of the monthly returns for the three years at Rs. 350, Rs. 499 and Rs. 474 respectively. The assessee had not disclosed his turnover relating to cotton waste which constituted the bulk of his turnover. The assessing authority proposed to bring the turnover of cotton waste also to tax. The contention of the assessee was that cotton waste fell within the description of the word "cotton" and, therefore, was exempted as it was included in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsation to the workers who were retrenched from service and goods had been sold on credit basis and the amount had not been realised the particulars of which were furnished before the appellate authority. The appellate authority considered the above aspects and he was of the opinion that as the tax liability arose only on account of the amendment and as the appellant had not collected the tax the case required a lenient treatment. He also took note of the fact that the Commissioner himself had appreciated the financial difficulties of the appellant and had granted instalments for payment of tax in January, 1976. After considering the above aspects, he stated as follows: "After having gone through the assessment records and from the list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to notice the relevant submission made on behalf of the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner that the liability arose on account of an amendment to the Act during the period in question and that as the appellant was not aware, he had not collected the tax and also did not include the turnover of cotton waste while filing the returns. The Deputy Commissioner had considered the said circumstances as relevant circumstances for reducing the penalty. This aspect has not at all been considered by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was of the view that the financial difficulties of the assessee which were also evidenced by the order of the Commissioner granting instalments should not have been taken into account in deciding the penalty. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
