TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (2) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stood transferred to it under section 15, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. 2.. The facts of the case giving rise to this application for revision may be summarised thus. The petitioner was carrying on the business of manufacturing chemicals. M/s. Dechem Chemicals Privated Limited was its sister concern. Both these companies were under the same management. Methanol was being purchased against "C" forms for resale and also for manufacturing goods for sale. On February 14, 1991, the respondent surveyed the business premises of the petitioner. It was noticed that tax was not recovered and deposited in respect of certain transactions, totalling Rs. 8,63,301. Notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner to show cause as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the department that if show cause notice would not have been served upon the petitioner, the said evasion of tax would not have been detected, the theory that methonal was given on loan was an afterthought, petitioner could not produce any document in support of its said plea and, on the contrary, vouchers showed the transactions as transit sales. He further contended that if the methanol would have been given on loan, there was no question of showing the transactions of the methanol as tax exempted. The question of tax exemption arises only in case of sale. He also contended that the accounts books of the sister concern showing the transaction as loan were not produced. He contended that debit vouchers for the tax was as loan were not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id. 5.. The surviving question for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is liable for penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Act. Initially, additional tax of Rs. 80, 274, Interest of Rs. 16,005 and penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 were levied. After rectification under section 17 of the Act, the amounts were reduced to Rs. 24,810, 4,816 and 36,000 respectively. In the second appeal, the Tribunal reduced the amount of penalty to Rs. 24, 000 giving the relief of Rs. 12,000. 6.. Section 16(1)(e) runs as under: "(e) has concealed any particulars from any return furnished by him or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars therein. " 7.. It has been observed in Murarilal Ahuja & Sons v. Board of Revenue [1986] 61 STC 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment proceeding cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceeding. That is how the law has been understood by the law still. It was also laid down that before a penalty can be imposed the entirety of the circumstances must be taken into account and must point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represents income and that the assessee has consciously concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished incaccurate particulars.' " 8.. The following facts and circumstances deserve consideration in this connection: (1) All the disputed transactions in respect of the methanol have been shown in the account books and also in the original returns as tax exempted. (2) In all the vouchers relating to t....