9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 4,608 was imposed by the learned ITO vide order dt.25th May, 1985framed under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. Similarly for the asst. yr. 1983-84 another penalty of Rs. 1,080 was also levied by order of the same date and under the same section. 4. Both the orders were contested by the assessee and before the learned AAC it was argued by Shri R.C. Jain, the learned authorised representative that the firm had been assessed on income of Rs. 61,840 and Rs. 61,210 for the years under consideration and that the assessee had deposited advance tax under s. 210 of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,276 for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and of Rs. 6,060 for the asst. yr. 1983-84. It was submitted that since no tax was payable after adjusting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m has been fully discharged by the payment of advance taxes." The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Poona vs. Janta Trading Co. (1983) 37 CTR (Bom) 203 : (1984) 150 ITR 676 (Bom). The Patna High Court has considered the judgment with of Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maskara Tea Estate (1981) 21 CTR (Gau) 47 : (1981) 130 ITR 955 (Gau)." 5. Hence the present appeals by the assessee before us. The learned counsel Shri B.B. Khare, on behalf of the assessee reiterated the submissions seen to have earlier been made before the Revenue Authorities and also made mention of certain orders of the Tribunal and mentioned that after adjusting the advance-tax no demand remained to be satisfied and thus n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iformity we should follow this finding straight-away and allow the assessee s appeal. It was also suggested that in case this finding could not be followed then the matter be placed before a larger Bench of the Tribunal. This suggestion of the learned Authorised Representative could not be conceded for the simple reason that the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court on the point was clear and so also the provision of law. The judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, which we will be referring after a shortwhile, is not seen to have been noted in the order at page 762 of 13 ITD. The suggestion for placing the matter before the Special Bench of the Tribunal could also be not accepted for the same reason. Thus it is neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases relied upon by Shri Khare. In fact the issue is clinched by the decision of the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court which has the jurisdiction in the case of Publishing Co. vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 782 (MP) wherein it is held that language of sub-s. (2) of s. 271 of the Act being clear on the point could not be ignored. In fact the relevant observation is as under: "Where there was a delay of twelve months in filing the return by the assessee and the IT authorities found that there was no reasonable cause for filing the return beyond time, penalty under, s. 271(2) of the IT Act, 1961, can be imposed on the assessee and no question of law arises for reference to the High Court. By s. 271(2) of the Act a fiction is created and even if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
