Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1978 (2) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ducts Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177 : (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). But the assessee could not produce before the Tribunal the material on the basis of which the principle indicated in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision could be applied. It was further claimed that in view of the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Ali Mohamed & Co. 40 CLT 208 (Ori) the burden of showing the failure to file the return without reasonable cause was on the Department and in the absence of any material on record to prove failure of the assessee, penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal took the view that the Revenue had failed to place material on record from which it could be gathered that the failure to make the return was without reasonable cause and a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Tribunal should given effect to the decision of the Supreme Court by applying it to the facts of the case." 6. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee filed details showing payment of Tax before the date of penalty and claimed that no tax was payable rather refund was due to the assessee on that date. He, therefore, submitted that no penalty could be imposed, in this case, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vagetable Products Ltd. Reference was also made to the order of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C' in the case of Magniram Sardarmal 1977 Tax 37(6)-129 (Bom) for the same proposition. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, took us through the language of the relevant sections and c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payable under a notice of demand or on the date of imposition of penalty. But after the amendment of s. 271(1) by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, that controversy does not longer exist. The amended provision of section made it clear that quantum of penalty has to be calculated on the basis of "assessed tax" irrespective of whether the tax was due and outstanding on the date of levy of penalty. The meaning of the term "assessed tax" is given as the tax as reduced by the sum, if any, deducted at source or paid in advance in accordance with the provision of the Act. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that in order to compute the quantum of penalty only the tax deducted at source or the advance tax paid by the assessee, as the case may ....