9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 2. The returns of income were due to be filed in this case on 30th June of each year. They were, however, filed on28th Oct., 1963and30th Sept., 1964respectively. As the returns were filed late, the ITO for the reasons mentioned in the orders dt.31st March, 1975levied penalties of Rs. 865 and Rs. 2,236 respectively. 3. In appeal it was urged that for the asst. yr. 1963-64 the assessee has as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention in regard to quantum and reduced the penalties to Rs. 432 and Rs.1,490 respectively. 4. It is against this order of the AAC that the assessee has come up in appeal to the Tribunal. It has been submitted by the assessee's representative that there was reasonable cause for filing belated returns, which were delayed by one month in the first year and two months in the second year respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue to be accepted. It was submitted that the AAC has mentioned in the order that "apart from the statement of the appellant there is nothing to show the extent of negligence of the accountant who had filed an application for extension of time upto15th Aug., 1963for the filing to the return for asst. yr. 1963-64." It was submitted that no application for extension of time was filed in the asst. yr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee's representative that the penalty would not be levied merely because the same is leviable unless it is shown that the assessee has acted in utter disregard of its legal obligation and in defiance of law. The case referred to by the assessee's representative in 102 ITR 301 also supports him. In our opinion taking the totality of the circumstances, it could be held that there was reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
