9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in both these years they are consolidated and disposed of by this common order. 2. The return of income for the asst. yr. 1971-72 was legally due on 30th Sept., 1971 whereas the same was actually filed on 27th March, 1974. There was, therefore a delay of 29 months in filing the return. The ITO initiated the penalty proceedings and issued a show cause notice to the assessee. The said notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the penalty notice was issued on that date. There was, therefore no question of issuing a show cause notice on 16th Aug., 1972 for compliance on 25th Aug., 1972. 5. The ld. representative for the assessee submitted that the notice was issued before the assessment was actually made. In other words the penalty notice was issued during the course of assessment proceedings. When the assessee rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the AAC was justified in deleting the penalty. No interference is called for. 7. For the asst. yr. 1972-73 the return of income was legally due on 30th Sept 1972 whereas the same was actually filed on 29th Aug., 1974. The return was, therefore, filed late by 24 months. The ITO initiated the penalty proceedings and issued a show cause notice for late filing of the return. The assessee filed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty notice was issued along with it. But by mistake the assessment year was wrongly mentioned in the show cause notice. But this was not a material defect on the basis of which penalty should have been deleted. The assessee could have very well understood that the penalty was meant for the asst. yr. 1972-73. 10. The ld. representative for the assessee on the other hand, submitted that the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
