TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort, the Act), for filing incorrect returns for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs. 10,000 for not depositing the tax due respectively are impugned. Undisputably, both these orders emanate from the assessment order dated 28th March, 1972 (annexure P1) (in C.W.P. No. 1336 of 1974), whereby on the basis of consolidated statement of purchases and sales filed in form S.T. VIII-A and form I under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n P.G.I., Chandigarh, for quite sometime, yet the appellate authority did not accept this plea and thus declined to condone the delay. The petitioner now impugns the orders of the Assessing Authority imposing the penalties as well as of the appellate authority dismissing its appeals. The primary ground of challenge is that since the basic order of assessment (annexure P1 in both the petitions) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned orders of penalty are wholly independent orders and have nothing to do with the assessment order, annexure P1 in both the petitions. This submission obviously has no legs to stand upon for the reason that it is only during the course of the assessment proceedings that the Assessing Authority has found that either the petitioner had filed incorrect information or statement or the tax so asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
