TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer in the penalty proceedings, as the basis for computation of the reduced penalty that was payable pursuant to Ext.P5 order dated 15.07.2009. The contention of the petitioner that the penalty amount should now be further reduced and confined to an amount of ₹ 24,288/-, based on the assessment order that was passed after considering materials that were not available before the Intelligence Officer while passing Ext.P1 order, is wholly unjustified and liable to be rejected. - Time period to make the balance payment is granted to the assessee - Decided against assessee. - W.P.(C).No.17506 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2014 - A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.. FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENT : SMT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat was arrived at by the 3rd respondent Intelligence Officer. It would appear that the petitioner preferred a rectification application before the 1st respondent for rectifying the said order to confine the penalty amount to only such portion of the tax as was attributable to the turnover that was found to be not declared in the proceedings before the 3rd respondent Intelligence Officer. According to the petitioner, the tax due on the said undeclared turnover would have come to only ₹ 11,110/- and therefore, this ought to have been the penalty imposed on him as a consequence of Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent. By Ext.P8 order dated 30.03.2010, the contention of the petitioner, with regard to confining the penalty amount to the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduced tax liability before the assessing authority. It is contended that, since the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent, the figures of tax for the purposes of assessment could not be automatically adopted for the purposes of determining the penal liability of the petitioner. 3. I have heard Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Smt.K.T.Lilly, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P1, P3 and P5 and P8 orders which have been passed in penalty proceedings initiated against the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d due by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P1 order (Rs.2,80,140/-). Thus, although the 1st respondent had reduced the penalty amount to the actual amount of tax involved, he then proceeded to adopt the tax amount, as arrived at by the Assessing Officer and not the tax amount arrived at by the Intelligence Officer in the penalty proceedings, as the basis for computation of the reduced penalty that was payable pursuant to Ext.P5 order dated 15.07.2009. The contention of the petitioner that the penalty amount should now be further reduced and confined to an amount of ₹ 24,288/-, based on the assessment order that was passed after considering materials that were not available before the Intelligence Officer while passing Ext.P1 order, is wholly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
