Madhya Pradesh H.C : The penalty imposed by the Departmental authorities was wrong on the factual data contained in the Departmental order and in the record whereas the record shows that the certificate issued by the Mandi Committee upon which the Department relied on was on a wrong calculation.

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh-Indore Bench

CIT vs. Gajrajsingh Nathusingh Hatpipla

Sections 256(2)

Asst. Year 1983-84

R.D. Vyas & Shambhoo Singh, JJ.

IT Ref. No. 63 of 1996

2nd May, 2000

Counsel Appeared

H.C. Sarda, for the Revenue : R.L. Jain, for the Assessee

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

This application for reference is made by the Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 460/Ind of 1989 asst. yr. 1983-84 dt. 27th June, 1991, whereby the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the Departmental authorities was wrong on the factual data contained in the Departmental order and in the record whereas the record shows that the certificate issued by the Mandi Committee upon which the Department relied on was on a wrong calculation. Apparently instead of 1444.83, 1397.67 quintals of purchase was done. On calculation of the details of the certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that factually there is a mistake in totalling by the Mandi Committee, therefore, the amount arrived at by the assessee was not correct. Hence, the penalty could not have been imposed upon the non-applicant. Another point which the Tribunal held against the Department is that the Departmental authorities who had initiated the proceedings and who had imposed the penalty did not have the jurisdiction of Rs. 10,000 by way of penalty whereas he has imposed penalty of Rs. 40,940 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. We feel that the Tribunal was right on the facts since there was wrong totalling by the Mandi Committee in the certificate which it has issued. The judgment of the Tribunal is based on facts rather than any question of law arising out of the judgment of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter we do not see any question of law hence ITR No. 63 of 1996 is rejected with costs. Advocate’s costs as may be proved.

[Citation : 246 ITR 343]

Malcare WordPress Security