9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00, Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 600 respectively for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 1984-85. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before me. It appears that the assessee, a partnership firm, was awarded certain contracts, (i) by the Executive Engineer, Mohini Sagar Dam Division, Shivpuri for the construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ultimately levied the penalty in question in his orders, he has mentioned that the ITO had not reported the date of the contract and without any reason therefor he has stated that the assessee was under the statutory obligations to furnish the information in form No. 52 to the ITO, Shivpuri and not to any other ITO. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had duly comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (2) and the scale of penalty is 50 rupees for every day during which the contravention continues. Thus, the date of the contract is must for determining the default under section 285A(1) and also the maximum penalty leviable under section 285A(2). If the ITO and the CIT do not know the date on which the contract between the assessee and the Executive Engineers concerned was entered into, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f whom are residents of Kamal Singh Ka Bagh, Shinde Ki Chhavni, Lashkar,Gwalior. The partnership firm also had its office at the same place. Therefore, it was the ITO at Gwlior who had the jurisdiction to assess the assessee on the dates on which the information in form No. 52 was delivered to ITO, B-Ward,Gwaliorand the learned CIT had nowhere given any reason why the ITO at Shivpuri had the juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of not exceeding 50 rupees for every day. 6. Act does not seem to lay down any period of limitation beyond which the Commissioner could not impose the penalty under section 285A(2), but that does not mean that the authorities should sleep over the matter and take action after several years. In this case the action has been initiated after about seven years. A penalty after such a long lapse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
