TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner towards penalty - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.32811 of 2015 and MP Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For the Petitioner : Ms.R.Hemalatha For the Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai ORDER 1. This is writ petition concerning the Assessment Year 2009-2010, whereby, the order dated 14.08.2015, is sought to be challenged. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the writ petition, tax and penalty has been paid by the petitioner. 5.1. Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, who appears for the respondent, affirms this position. 5.2. Therefore, the only aspect, which remains to be addressed is the imposition of penalty. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the penalty under Section 22(5) of the 2006 Act can be imposed at the rate given therein, i.e., 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the tax due and the tax paid, at the rate of 150%, could not have been pegged at ₹ 2,08,464/-. 7.3. Clearly, therefore, the amount demanded towards penalty, as indicated in the impugned order, is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 22(5) of the 2006 Act. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of levy of penalty, as this is the only aspect, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
