9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as well as contracts to the military. For the asst. yr. 1965-66 while the return of income was due on 30th Sept., 1965, the assessee filed it only on 16th Aug., 66. The assessee claimed that shortly after the due date, there was a Pakistani aggression in Sept., 1965, with the result that the assessee's services were pressed for the supply to the forward areas and, therefore, the assessee was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and, therefore, the penalty should not be imposed. The ITO rejected the plea of the assessee and observing that the assessee had not also asked for extension of time imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,360 for the asst. yr. 1965-66 and Rs. 11,200 for the asst. yr. 1966-67. On appeal, the AAC reduced the penalty in the first year to Rs. 2,180 finding that the illness of the partner might have affect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the hostilities having affected the business of the assessee as well as the illness of the partner resulting in the set back to the business of the assessee. It is obvious from the very assessment record that all was not well with the assessee and the delay in the filing of the return was for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Such being the position, there can be no inference of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
