9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows: The petitioner-company filed its return for the assessment year 2003-04 on December 1, 2003, declaring an income of Rs. 30,00,780 along with a tax audit report under section 44AB as an annexure enlisting the cash transactions in excess of Rs. 20,000 to bring the notice of the authorities. Pursuant thereto, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Range II, on August 30, 2004, issued a notice to furnish the reasons for the two transactions in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 failing which a penalty would be levied at the rate of 100 per cent, of the amount transacted in cash. On February 25, 2005, the petitioner-company filed its reply to the show cause notice explaining the pressing circumstances due to which cash transactions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006. It is also directed that the assessee will not seek unnecessary adjournment on the date of hearing of the appeal." Aggrieved by the said order the above writ petition has been filed. Heard Mr. P. S. Raman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Pushya Seetharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents. Mr. P.S. Raman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, drew the attention of this court to the provisions contained in sections 269SS, 271D and 273B of the Income-tax Act and submitted that the order of the first appellate authority is a non-speaking order and drew the attention of this court to paragraph 6 of the order of the first appellate authority is as follows: "6. I have considered the rival sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptable and it is prima facie seen that the first appellate authority has not at all considered the case on the merits and has also not considered the various objections and explanations offered by the petitioner. The order of the first appellate authority is virtually a non-speaking order passed in a mechanical manner. The Tribunal ought to have considered these aspects of the matter and considered the petition filed by the petitioner for waiver in accordance with law. But, instead of doing that, the Tribunal has passed an order rejecting the petition stating that it is not a fit case for grant of stay, as the assessee has not paid any amount towards the total demand raised by the Department and the tax due which is now sought to be stayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
