9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1978for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 respectively. They were however, filed on9th March, 1977and16th Feb., 1978respectively. The notice to show cause why penalty for delay in filing of the returns should not be levied was issued in each of the years but the assessee did not reply. The ITO, accordingly, levied a penalty of Rs. 1,759 for 7 months delay in asst. yr. 1976-77 and Rs. 1,528 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant's case that Shri Lal was authorised by the assessee for his tax affairs. This is clearly wrong because we were informed that the returns itself had been filed by Shri Lal on behalf of the assessee. The AAC further observed that no application for extension was filed by the appellant, if the delay was on account of information being not available in time. She also noted that the returns for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee must apply for extension of time because failure to apply for extension of time does not debar the assessee from proving reasonable cause. The application for extension of time may be contemporaneous evidence of the conduct of the assessee but it is not conclusive either way. The AAC was, therefore, wrong in laying stress on the failure to file applications for extension of time. She has also m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
