TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 1196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suo motu cancelled the order and directed a review by the first respondent. The result was exhibits P5, P6 and P7 and penalty imposed for the three assessment years went over Rs. 12 lakhs. In the revision, the second respondent, by exhibit P8, substantially reduced the penalty which came to about Rs. 4 lakhs. 3.. The petitioner had filed a revision from the orders, under section 45A(5) of the Act. Pending the above, the Commissioner (third respondent) gave notice proposing to set aside exhibit P8 order and for restoring exhibits P5 to P7. After hearing all the matters, the third respondent had issued exhibit P17 restoring exhibits P5 to P7. These are under challenge. 4.. The petitioner's contentions are two fold. It is submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....practiced. It had been found by the assessing authority that there was violation of section 45A(1)(b), (d) and (g). Restoration of the order passed by the assessing authority by the Board of Revenue was legal and proper and the order gave explicit reasons, according to them, to impose the penalty. 7.. In respect of the contentions regarding limitation, there was no specific answer. But on an examination of the dates I find that there is no ground to accept the contention that proceedings are barred by limitation. The department has a contention that being proceedings under section 45 of the Act, the period prescribed by section 19(1) has no relevance at all. The limitation prescribed during the period was four years from the expiry of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of power was under section 45A of the Act. The issue of limitation did not arise. I am therefore of the opinion that proceedings are valid and the challenge on the ground of limitation has to be rejected. 9.. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that imposition of penalty is based on principles of proportionality. The king-pin of the argument was the circumstance that the transactions were included in the account books of the company, and it was only a case of misclassification. It is urged that there was no contumacious conduct of deliberate avoidance of tax payable and the penalty proceedings which can be equated to quasi-criminal proceedings could be initiated only on a definite finding that there was a guilty mi....