9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35,47,154.83 respectively by the assessing authority. Subsequently, there was a reassessment invoking the powers under section 16(1) of the Act on the basis of materials recovered during the course of inspection and the total and taxable turnover were refixed at Rs. 43,96,200.80 and Rs. 43,13,667.53 respectively for the said assessment year. The addition made during the course of reassessment on the basis of the records and estimates of the suppressed turnover was Rs. 9,43,990. Consequently a penalty of Rs. 40,838 was also levied under section 16(2) at 1½ times the tax due on the suppressed sales of Rs. 8,25,990. The appellants challenged the reassessment by filing an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of Rs. 1,30,024 and the penalty was also reduced to 75 per cent of the tax due on the suppressed turnover as determined by the appellate authority. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 3,413. The Joint Commissioner, while exercising suo motu powers of revision, after giving due opportunity to the assessee, confirmed his proposal to enhance the penalty and refixed the same at 1½ times, amounting to Rs. 6,826. Aggrieved, T.C.(A) No. 231 of 1983 has been filed. 4.. For the assessment year 1972-73, a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 32,00,522.01 and Rs. 30,26,957.71 was determined during the course of initial assessment. Subsequently, the assessment was revised invoking the powers under section 16(1) of the Act on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hod without assigning any reason whatsoever. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, once the appellate authority itself held the assessee guilty of suppression of turnover, the said authority ought not to have interfered with the quantum of penalty, particularly when on the facts it could be seen that but for the inspection and unearthing of materials in the shape of anamath accounts and records, the tax due to the State could have been lost and the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority were well justified in sustaining the penalty at 1½ times. 7.. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. We are of the view that the orders of the Joint Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f affairs, they are not expected or entitled to act ipso dixit or capriciously, but their action should be reasonable and based on sound exercise of discretion judiciously. The very object of the wide amplitude of powers conferred upon these authorities is to keep a watch and safeguard the interests of Revenue too. 8.. So far as the facts and circumstances of the instant cases are concerned, the first appellate authority itself held that the assessee had consciously committed the act of suppression and that the department has proved the existence of the relevant circumstances leading to the suppression and that, but for the investigation made by the department officials, the suppressed turnover would not have come to light at all. Having t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lysis of the orders in the cases before us would disclose that these are not cases of such nature but, as noticed supra, in these cases, the very appellate authority came to the conclusion that the assessee consciously committed acts of suppression. In such circumstances, unless the appellate authority has specifically pointed out any extenuating circumstances to warrant a lenient view and reduction of penalty, a blunt assertion and expression of an opinion that in its view a reduction is called for cannot be said to be a proper judicious approach or judicial exercise of the powers or discretion vested with the appellate authority. These are no reasons in the eye of law. Even an appellate authority is obliged to exercise its discretion and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing authority and that the plea of the assessee that the revisional authority could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the appellate authority is far-fetched and cannot have our approval, at any rate in the cases before us. In view of our conclusion that the appellate authority failed to judiciously exercise its power and discretion and that the said authority acted erroneously without properly considering and assigning any reasons, the right of the Joint Commissioner to interfere in the matter by invoking his suo motu powers of revision cannot be denied to the said authority. For all the reasons stated supra, we see no reason or justification to interfere in the matter and the tax appeals therefore fail and shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
