2018 (11) TMI 1026

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 8-D (6) of the Act whereunder the penalty of Rs. 1,15,000/- was imposed on the assessee. 3. The assessee contends that for the A.Y. 1990-91 it was liable to deduct tax Rs. 1,44,068/- and deposit the same with the revenue against payments made to various contractors. While such deductions are admitted to have been made against payment to the contractors, admittedly, the assessee defaulted in making prompt deposit of the same with the revenue. It is thus submitted that up to 15.03.1991 the assessee deposited Rs. 29,733/- out of that TDS amount whereas for the balance it deposited Rs. 97,592.85 on 28.06.1991; Rs. 63,199/- on 28.08.1991 and Rs. 12,139/- on 05.06.2006. 4. Thus, the assessee claimed to have deposited total amount of Rs. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Trust decided on 24.07.2015. 7. Opposing the present revision, learned Standing Counsel submits that the principle being invoked by learned counsel for the assessee is not applicable in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as undisputedly the penalty was initiated in compliance of the direction dated 01.08.1998 and the penalty order was passed on 25.03.2000, whereas according to the assessee's own case it cleared the default of interest by depositing the amount of Rs. 12,139/- on 05.06.2006 i.e. after the penalty order had come into existence. He therefore, submits that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. Perusal of the order reveals that it has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case ....