9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led only on3rd July, 1982. There was thus a delay of 35 months. The ITO issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. 4. The assessee explained that the books of account of M/s J.S. Tractors had been seized by the ST Department on24th March, 1979. These books of account related to the asst. yr. 1978-79 and 1979-80. These books were later on handed over to the IT Department and they were in the custody of the Department and hence the return of income for this year could not be filed in time. The ITO considered this explanation but did not find it acceptable. She noted that it was clear from the letter of the Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment)-III, Sales-tax, Agra that the Sales-tax authorities had insisted upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 410 : (1980) 124 653 (P H). On this reasoning, she directed the ITO to find out the date on which the return was filed and exclude the period up to that period, as having been explained satisfactorily. In fact the AAC went so far as to allow a further period of 2 months from the date on which the return of the firm was filed for calculating the period of default in the case of the assessee. (It is common ground before us that on this reasoning, which was accepted by the Department also, the period of default was reckoned as only a period of 6 months i.e. from1st Jan., 1982to30th June, 1982. This was because the return of the firm was filed on12th Oct., 1981). 7. After hearing the period and on the material on record, we find the reasoni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessment in this case was completed on a total income of Rs. 29,490 raising a demand of Rs. 5,230. It was seen that the assessee had not filed any statement of advance-tax for this year as required under s. 209A of the Act. In reply to the show cause notice issued by the ITO for levy of penalty, the assessee explained that the books of M/s J. S. Tractors in which she was a 50 per cent partner had been seized on 24th March, 1979 and had not been returned to the firm and hence the details necessary for filing the statement of accounts for advance-tax could not be sorted out leading to the default in question. The ITO rejected this explanation. She recorded that, in fact, the sales-tax authorities had required the above firm to take ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
