TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (6) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnover of Rs. 36,29,688 and Rs. 35,47,154.83 respectively by the assessing authority. Subsequently, there was a reassessment invoking the powers under section 16(1) of the Act on the basis of materials recovered during the course of inspection and the total and taxable turnover were refixed at Rs. 43,96,200.80 and Rs. 43,13,667.53 respectively for the said assessment year. The addition made during the course of reassessment on the basis of the records and estimates of the suppressed turnover was Rs. 9,43,990. Consequently a penalty of Rs. 40,838 was also levied under section 16(2) at 1½ times the tax due on the suppressed sales of Rs. 8,25,990. The appellants challenged the reassessment by filing an appeal before the first appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellate authority, the addition was sustained to the tune of Rs. 1,30,024 and the penalty was also reduced to 75 per cent of the tax due on the suppressed turnover as determined by the appellate authority. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 3,413. The Joint Commissioner, while exercising suo motu powers of revision, after giving due opportunity to the assessee, confirmed his proposal to enhance the penalty and refixed the same at 1½ times, amounting to Rs. 6,826. Aggrieved, T.C.(A) No. 231 of 1983 has been filed. 4.. For the assessment year 1972-73, a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 32,00,522.01 and Rs. 30,26,957.71 was determined during the course of initial assessment. Subsequently, the assessment was revised invok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d merely reduced the penalty by a rough and ready method without assigning any reason whatsoever. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, once the appellate authority itself held the assessee guilty of suppression of turnover, the said authority ought not to have interfered with the quantum of penalty, particularly when on the facts it could be seen that but for the inspection and unearthing of materials in the shape of anamath accounts and records, the tax due to the State could have been lost and the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority were well justified in sustaining the penalty at 1½ times. 7.. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Commissioner as the case may be is at the helm of affairs, they are not expected or entitled to act ipso dixit or capriciously, but their action should be reasonable and based on sound exercise of discretion judiciously. The very object of the wide amplitude of powers conferred upon these authorities is to keep a watch and safeguard the interests of Revenue too. 8.. So far as the facts and circumstances of the instant cases are concerned, the first appellate authority itself held that the assessee had consciously committed the act of suppression and that the department has proved the existence of the relevant circumstances leading to the suppression and that, but for the investigation made by the department officials, the suppress....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, the maximum penalty may not be warranted. A careful analysis of the orders in the cases before us would disclose that these are not cases of such nature but, as noticed supra, in these cases, the very appellate authority came to the conclusion that the assessee consciously committed acts of suppression. In such circumstances, unless the appellate authority has specifically pointed out any extenuating circumstances to warrant a lenient view and reduction of penalty, a blunt assertion and expression of an opinion that in its view a reduction is called for cannot be said to be a proper judicious approach or judicial exercise of the powers or discretion vested with the appellate authority. These are no reasons in the eye of law. Even an app....