9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated October 12, 1981. 2.. The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 85,350.25 for the assessment year 1975-76. The officers of the inspection wing had inspected the business premises and residence of a partner of assessee on March 29, 1976 and recovered certain records, which were referable to the year 1975-76. They were verified with regular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was called for. Hence it was proposed to levy a penalty of Rs. 2,842, being 1½ times the tax due on the actual suppression of Rs. 37,891 for the assessment year 1975-76. The proposal was communicated to the assessee, who was called upon to file objections. After the objections were filed and the parties were heard, the assessing officer, by proceeding dated November 15, 1980, levied a penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer. The assessee took up the matter in second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, where the appeal failed. The assessee has come up in revision. 3.. The only plea that has been raised before us is the reiteration of the plea that was raised before the first appellate authority. It has been canvassed that the succeeding officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt with the pre-amendment position of section 12(3). It has not relevancy or applicability to the position of law after section 12(3) has been amended. 5.. The scope of the amended section 12(3) came up for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Govardhana Engineering Industries [1986] 63 STC 109. In that case, on inspection of the business premises of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not justified in levying penalty. The Tribunal found that the slip recovered did not relate to assessee's business and therefore it was not open to the succeeding officer to levy penalty. On revision, the Division Bench held that the Tribunal erred in its view that the succeeding officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty in a case where the original authority had not passed an order levying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
