-..-.-Wu
2
16.l8.2£’1£)3 ccmfinning the order the
Appellate Commissioner and confirm 1:h$”:-0r(3.:&r_””}_f)fi:E«,S!:?§(5.
by the Tfixzicil. Camnissionex of Income ,’ .:1>Ean:_;’ai»qxe;–V_.
Range , Iifiazzgalare .
This Appeal 3.5 cam.’ on»
this day, muwmra J’. deliv1ai3;9d_Vthe £;,s3.3.<»win–.»g':–._ '
-3′ ‘£3 9 c§*m ::é_N @-
This apmal z;€2i¥:e.:;;g1e’Vchalleaging the
concmrrant fixnfiings’ passed by the
Cmzmissiggént :;–{Appea1. ‘ 5} which has been
a.€£.i;rmed:V .3;:yi..’ ;’~;,_;;e2″ fippexxata Bfribunal in
xm 60_é2’3a5ng? 19:-.3?’ 15. 19 . 2003.
2. $2:éT}.:§.'” a~’::¢’?.:.-.%5′ game are as hereunder:
‘3;&se:5saée.. _ :£.s indulging in canstructional
‘.mfi.:+T.'<r,_7ib.';1':,A:i..-.-+.,s§;«–..V Fear the asseawnt year 1995–9€ Retm::n'
g:E?'._Ii::;:c§a'a-3;-.: filed as; 3i3.8.1§95. Réturn was taken
u13"4«.fo1j"sn::§1:tin37. mixing the corzxse of stzrutiny, it
was fiirsfiicad that the assassee had boxroweci loan in
in cantravaatian of Se/
4
{Appeals} . Cemaissioner cf Incoma-Ta.x
szxmsidazing the: facts and bank-grmand csf ”
halts. that in such
treated as in vziclaticm of sec.2s9ss:’«r;£’*–;-fie sat, and VV ”
accordingly appeal was
zevenue filea an bef-gaze:- _ Indcma-mésx
Appellate Tribunal wmch the
sauna order. filed
raismzg ting §~.,fe.7£ii¢;w1rig 1:.!%*§11:a3_’¥;:’g§§.”:Vi.:z..V=,::..i§’VVV’:;1:est.i.::; of law:
“Whether. 1′, the ‘~a’m,¢11ai;e authorities wara
aarmctj; i:i*;:.zm1;s.;:.’ng th’a:;”a sum of as.5,e3,75e/—
;?.dva.n;cé=ii’ 1:}; v,$’r;_i.._t3-grdfrey £D’S.§.3.va Managing
§a.r*E:ne:r £s£T=.$;}3::–~,g Vaussesaee: firm in favaur of the
asmesseé ._f.2.-rzza Tagzisléi mot contravene Sec.2S9$$
on? “me , mt thexefiara no garezaaity under
_-$ec.2″J 133 ¢:!:” the ‘Act ear; be leviaafi. despite bath
of ~ than “c*::2;;5t.;i.utute aeyaxrate legai entity zmdaer
V’ ‘zzim-“.2 Agt?
ézigard the counsel fer the partiea, we
as ¥:iim-E ctpinicn that the findings of the
and the isaioner «sf Inczmne-Tax
~{A§:f>§ea..1.s} that there is int: contxaventian of
A s§e.:¥..}2s9ss cf the Act camzct be acceptable. fiat we
u Wfiave aoticed that the cause shown by the assessae
for dragging the penalty prccamdirxgra was suffiugent
fix
U1
and it should have considered by the:”””a1.;§3_§:{$%é;j.ung’
afficerfi Considering’ the xeascning hgy xtiaesg
Ccamnissicaner of Income-Tax :v.J{£pb§F¥e’aJ.§:}
been further affirmed by fire’
the apmioa ‘that the caus’e:{“:.:2;a:w:;? by vtfiice éfipéxéixantal’
in accepting the muggy ‘it; paattnef’ in axdez
ta pay iabaur chafigtes the bank.
busiae-55 n¢'”»’?A’s wafiia; — szzfiiciant
czause. E={er;.. D5 paici mney to
the a5.$@§.:se”.>g{:’- Vassessee coulci net
have since banking hears was
:31-tzsad. ‘En ‘ »:;§:i;.%;’5;éi1z5ta.n::-as, Ccsmzissionar af
Iaacaggz,-.’.-Sax ..,(fifp§eai’.s} and the tribunas. were
V. ‘j.1;§a’£:3.ifi5e=§ci in aééégfiting the cazzse shown by the
.. 3a,5: };§uf’f.:i.c.ie:z2t cause unit to levy penalty.
313$; i:;3’1e «réaafininq of the tribunal am well. as the
‘VVCanmi2;s$;anér of Inccme-?£ax {,§ppeal$} that thare 3.5
“.r;.a3;.Vht;:.c::: or secfizssss of the Act aanzwt be
a:’;’.q§:-.’z’*’*.:’e’AcA::i.a’1.:e<i. In the aircumstaacas, thaugh the
question of law is answered in favour of the
" revenue, aonaidaring the baclcwgraund cf this casa
<9
6
as there was sufficient cause shown by _f£”;’}’:iat~:*..V2_*a–.t~:=_§’ei:,=’«,__;:-.a5’e:_s~e.~
to drop the penalty pxoceedings, Vafiizaaai uisb
disxnissed. V
Sd/-
Judge
%’ ‘ “- _ °* .;e;2ooaaa