TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paying the tax is based on any material evidence on record?" Since the substantial question of law framed is common in both the appeals, we propose to decide the same by this common judgment. That apart, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, (the ITAT, for short) has also decided the same by a common order dated October 31, 2001. Respondent No. 1 ("the assessee", for short) has chosen not to contest these appeals. Both these appeals arise from the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (Joint Commissioner of Income-tax) dated December 17, 1998, under section 221(1) of the Act. Tax Appeal No. 39 of 2002 pertains to penalty levied by the said Assessing Officer in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 for the assessment year 1996-97 while ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence whatsoever in that regard and the assessee also did not furnish the balance-sheet of the assessee-company to support the plea regarding financial difficulty and, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal observing that there was no material before him to infer that there was genuine reasonable cause for the default in question. The assessee then approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its common order dated October 31, 2001, stated that the Assessing Officer, the CCIT(A) and the Tribunal were the fact-finding authorities, in seriatim, and that the non-payment of instalments granted by the CCIT would not lead to the conclusion that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax. (2) Where as a result of any final order the amount of tax, with respect to the default in the payment of which the penalty was levied, has been wholly reduced, the penalty levied shall be cancelled and the amount of penalty paid shall be refunded." Admittedly, the show-cause notices in this case (Tax Appeal No. 40/2002) were issued by the Assessing Officer on April 23, 1998. In this case the assessee informed the Assessing Officer by letter dated April 29, 1998, that its manager was hospitalised and sought time of 45 days. However, the Assessing Officer by his letter dated May 13, 1998, rejected the request for both the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The assessee took no further steps to approach any higher authorities n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Assessing Officer by letter dated December 4, 1997. On the same day the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 towards the tax and again on December 5, 1997, paid another sum of Rs. 2,75,000 and thus Rs. 5,00,000 in all. Although, the Deputy Commissioner by another letter dated May 13, 1998, rejected the request of the assessee for the grant of time for payment of taxes for both the years, it appears that the assessee approached the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, with a request to extend time for the payment of taxes and the said Chief Commissioner of Income-tax by his letter dated February 12, 1998, was pleased to extend the time to pay the tax for the assessment year 1996-97 until March 31, 1998. When this position wa....