9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (1) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act, 1961. 2. The facts are that the ITO observed that the accounting period for the relevant assessment year ended on31st March, 1969and under the provisions of s. 139(1) return of income was to be filed on or before30th Sept., 1969. The same was however filed on17th March, 1972. Thus, according to the ITO, there was a delay of complete 28 months in filing the same. In this view, he issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ims to have filed an application in form No. 6 for extension of time for filing the return clearly shows that the assessee was fully aware of its legal obligation to file the return of his income. In this view he confirmed the action of the ITO in imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,363 under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. Hence this appeal by the assessee before us. 4. Heard both the learned counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome unless specifically required to do so by the ITO by issuing a notice under s. 139(2). So far as the plea of the Revenue that the assessee firm was not treated as registered firm and hence the bonafide belief could be in respect of a registered firm and not in respect of an unregistered firm but at the same time we have observed that the assessment of the partners of the assessee firm were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
