1982 (2) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rm, however, filed it on29th May 1976thereby incurring a default of 10 months. The ITO accordingly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(a). The assessee contended that no penalty was exigible in the case as there was no tax payable in the case, rather it was a case of refund of Rs. 2,340. The ITO did not accept the contention and levied the penalty calculated at Rs. 7,886 u/s 271(1)(a). 3. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n this view, the AAC took support from various decisions of the High Courts cited on behalf of the assessee. 4. The Revenue is aggrieved and in appeal before us. It is the contention of Shrimati Pamela Bhandari, the ld. Deptl. Rep. That the penalty in this case was rightly imposed by the ITO. Reliance is placed on the decision of various High Courts, namely Delux Publishing Co. vs. Addl. CIT (19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uly considered and distinguished by the Tribunal in that order, no interference is called for in the present case which are admittedly identical. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In this case, the tax paid by the assessee by way of advance tax and tax deducted at source are admittedly more than the assessed taxes as a registered firm, In such a case, this Bench earlier held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X