Penalty proportionality in revision: non-speaking order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration.

A revisional order restoring penalty was unsustainable because it did not examine the assessee's factual explanation for transit delay or assess whether penalty was warranted and proportionate on the facts. A revisional authority exercising penalty powers must deal with the relevant factual matrix and the proportionality of the sanction; reliance on earlier decisions without applying them to the case at hand renders the order a non-speaking order. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order restoring penalty could be sustained when it did not examine the facts of the case or the proportionality of the penalty, and whether the matter required remand for reconsideration.

Analysis: The revisional authority relied on prior decisions but did not apply the facts of the present case to the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay in transit. The order also failed to consider whether the alleged non-compliance warranted penalty in the circumstances and whether the penalty imposed was proportionate. An order passed in exercise of revisional power must address the relevant factual matrix and the question of proportionality where penalty is involved; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable as a non-speaking order.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained and the matter was rightly remanded to the revisional authority for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded to the extent of obtaining setting aside of the revisional order and a remand for reconsideration of the revision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order imposing or restoring penalty must independently consider the facts of the case and the proportionality of the penalty; failure to do so makes the order liable to be set aside and remanded.

---