TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h at a belated stage, the assessee himself has confessed his mistake and sought an opportunity to revise his return, though such revision could not have been allowed, still taking into account such conduct of the assessee, we feel that the learned single Judge was justified in taking the view that the penalty of double the amount of tax imposed, viz. ₹ 23,61,076/- was too disproportionate. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with that relief granted by the learned single Judge also. Validity of order of assessment - Held that: - the omission in question had occurred in April, 2014. The Assessing Officer had issued notice calling upon the assessee to produce the books of accounts on 24.08.2015. The date specified for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return for December, 2013 caused on account of his omission to declare the stock of gold. However, without permitting the assessee to revise the return, the Assessing Officer issued notice to complete assessment including the gold for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Simultaneously, penalty notice was also issued. Although the assessee filed his reply notice and contested the matter, by Exts.P5 and P5(a) in W.P.(C) No.24958 of 2015, assessment was completed and penalty was also levied. It was, in these circumstances, the assessee filed W.P.(C) No.24958 of 2015 seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P5(a) mentioned above. 3. In the meantime, with effect from 01.04.2014, the assessee commenced business of gold in partnership and the stock of gold acqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.33522 of 2016 to the extent assessment order has been upheld by the learned single Judge. 7. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 8. Insofar as the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24958 of 2015 is concerned, the complaint of the learned Government Pleader is that the learned single Judge has allowed the assessee to file his revised return long after the registration itself has been cancelled. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the judgment of the learned single Judge is illegal. Similarly, insofar as the judgment in W.P.(C) No.33522 of 2016 is concerned, his complaint is that the learned single Judge for no valid reason has reduced the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as permissible in law and it was therefore, the learned single Judge has taken the view. 11. Coming to the complaint of the learned Government Pleader that in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.33522 of 2016, the learned single Judge has erroneously reduced the penalty imposed to ₹ 1 lakh, is concerned, according to us, levy of penalty should always be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the assessee. Insofar as this case is concerned, though at a belated stage, the assessee himself has confessed his mistake and sought an opportunity to revise his return, though such revision could not have been allowed, still taking into account such conduct of the assessee, we feel that the learned single Judge was justified in takin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
