https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3980 The Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the penalty imposed on the son for an offense committed by his father's proprietary concern was unjust. The Tribunal noted that the son, acting as a Power of Attorney holder, should not be penalized for giving a statement on behalf of the company. Highlighting inconsistencies in penalizing sons versus proprietors in similar cases, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and set aside the penalty on the son, allowing the appeal. The judgment was delivered on 1-1-2008. en-us Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3980 The Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the penalty imposed on the son for an offense committed by his father's proprietary concern was unjust. The Tribunal noted that the son, acting as a Power of Attorney holder, should not be penalized for giving a statement on behalf of the company. Highlighting inconsistencies in penalizing sons versus proprietors in similar cases, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and set aside the penalty on the son, allowing the appeal. The judgment was delivered on 1-1-2008. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3980