1990 (10) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee Year of asst. Period of delay in months Amount of penalty levied 735 Ku. Shruti 1980-81 31 months 1,290 736 Ku. Shalini 1980-81 31 months 1,373 737 Anurag 1979-80 31 months 2,604 739 Anurag 1980-81 31 months 6,094 740 Anurag 1981-82 19 months 4,332 741 Anurag 1982-83 7 months 1,973 796 Smt. Pritama 1980-81 31 months 5,702 797 Smt. Pritama 1981-82 19 months 3,507 790 Shri Ramesh 1980-81 31 months 13,176 793 Shri Ramesh 1981-82 19 months 6,209 795 Shri Ramesh 1982-83 7 months 1,311 798 Smt. Kamini 1980-81 31 months 4,808 799 Smt. Kamini 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces were served, was not authorised by any of the assessees and as such there was no valid service of the notices on the assessees. (iii) the penalty orders in all cases except in two cases of Anurag relating to the asst. yr. 1979-80 show that there was appearance of Shri Satish Malik for and on behalf of the assessees and Shri Satish Malik was agreeable to the levy of the penalties. Such representation by Shri Satish Malik for and on behalf of the assessees was never authorised by the assessees. Alternatively, Shri Satish Malik had hardly any time to seek instruction from the assessees and to gather facts and to prepare the cases for defending the assessees. Thus, the assessees were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. (i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said that the notices were served upon family member of the assessees. There is equally no material on record to show if Shri Satish Malik was authorised by the assessees to receive notices on their behalf. The services of notices on the assessees, Anurag, Ku. Shalini, Smt. Pritama and Shri Ramesh Malik was, therefore, not good. Alternatively, it is crystal clear that the assessees were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The notices were served upon Shri Satish Malik on 11th March, 1986 and the penalty cases were taken on the same day. It cannot be expected that one would be in a position to make effective representation in such a situation. It was a mere formality of service of show-cause notices on the assessee; but in e....