TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. The office report indicates that the respondent/assessee was served on 22.05.2014. There is no appearance on their behalf. The Court accordingly proceeds to set them down ex parte. 2. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration: - Did the Tribunal fall into error in directing the deletion of penalty imposed upon the assessee o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e. 285,000 Mt) as reduced by the total actual quantity of the commodity delivered by the seller." 4. The assessee had debited Rs. 17,24,24,025/- towards liquidated damages and was asked to substantiate that figure. In reply, the assessee claimed that during the relevant previous year it had incurred expenses on liquidated damages which had to be charged in profit and loss account and in this re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of liquidated damages by the assessee was done on taking the basis of the agreed quantity to be 3 lakh MT as against the actual agreed quantity of 2,85,000 MT, i.e., an excess of 15,000 MT. This was plainly contrary to the agreement itself. The AO, accordingly, disallowed Rs. 1,30,53,263/- and proceeded to issue notice under Section 271 and imposed penalty in that regard. The penalty order w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng which accepts the assessee's contentions with a further rationale that it could have committed a silly mistake, is unsustainable. There was no material on the record to support the assessee's return which claimed an allowance on the basis that the total quantity to be supplied was 3 lakh MT. The first explanation, i.e. that the said figure included the moisture content, is not borne out from th....