9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m contracts. For the asst. yr. 1970-71, the assessee did not file return at all and ex-parte assessment was made on 28th Feb., 1973. The ITO initiated proceedings for the imposition of penalty for failure to file the return and recording that the representative present could not give any satisfactory explanation, he held that the assessee wilful did not submit the return and he imposed a penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperly considered by the authorities below. It was submitted that in the circumstances the penalties imposed should be cancelled. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the imposition of penalty in these two cases cannot be sustained. We find that for the asst. yr. 1970-71 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven and the other that an explanation was given but it was not satisfactory explanation which is capable of two meanings, one, that no explanation at all was given and the other that an explanation was given but it was not satisfactory, In either case, it is obvious that the penalty was imposed without a proper consideration of the facts of the case. Such a routine imposition of penalty is not jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r years also, there is nothing to show that there was any conscious contravention of the statutory obligation. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the imposition of penalty for this assessment years also is not justified by the facts of the case and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, cancel the penalty imposed for this assessment year also. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
