2011 (12) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is no satisfactory reason given to reverse the finding of the original authority in regard to extending the benefit under Section 80 to the appellants - no finding of any suppression, fraud etc. and the fact that the appellants have retained some amount out of the loan disbursed does not alter the character of the amount and this is the first instance where the tax was not paid on account of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of retention while paying the loan amount towards purchase of the tractor. The appellants have subsequently paid the tax amount on the portion retained along with interest and they are not disputing the tax liability for the future period. The original authority has recorded that he was satisfied about the initial non-payment of the tax by the appellants on account of confusion entertained by them .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oreover, this is the first instance, where the tax was not paid on account of the confusion regarding the tax liability. Considering the same, I am of the view that the order of the original authority required, no interference and hence the impugned Order-in- Revision is set aside and the original authority's order is restored allowing the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X