ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Order dated 23rd November, 2006 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is under challenge whereby the penalty imposed upon the assessee has been increased from 50% to 150%. The proceedings pertain to assessment year 2000-2001 both for U.P and Central. In assessment proceedings the authorities on the basis of survey found that books of account could not be relied upon and accordingly turn over was enhanced. Though in appeal there was reduction in the turn over assessed but the finding that assessee had concealed and suppressed correct detail was maintained. In penalty proceedings the Assessing Authority imposed penalty to the extent of 200% of the amount of tax. The first Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to 50% after observing that the assessee had not indulged in any such evasion of tax in the past. Cross appeals were filed before the Tribunal both by the assessee and the Department. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Department while dismissing assessee's appeal and the amount of penalty has been enhanced from 50% to 150%.
(2.) The assessee is engaged in production of C.I. casting and for the relevant year in question it was shown that 28 castings were completed in the whole year. The authorities found that one casting was completed in 8 days and consequently the actual castings was found to be more than double of what was disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal further found that purchase of coal and molasis was also concealed. It was also found vide paper Nos.7, 8, 11 and 17 that goods' shown were not entered into books and the entries shown were made after the survey. Having observed such facts, the Tribunal found the action of assessee to be intentional in evading tax. The finding of first Appellate Authority reducing the penalty from 200% to 50% has consequently been disapproved and the penalty has been increased to 150%.
(3.) The contention of the assessee that past conduct was relevant and has been erroneously ommitted from consideration is not liable to be accepted in the facts of the present case. Facts in detail have been noticed and reasons have been recorded by the Tribunal to disagree with the finding of the first Appellate Authority. Penalty is imposed to the extent of 150%. Element of discretion exercised by the Tribunal while imposing penalty in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be perverse and erroneous.;