1979 (11) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act. 2. The WTO noted that for the asst. yr. 1971-72 the WT return was filed on 8th Oct., 1971 although the same was due to be filed on or before 30th June, 1971 and for the asst. yr. 1972-73 the return was filed on 1st Jan., 1973 although it was due on 30th June, 1972. For the delay of filing of the returns, the WTO started the penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eturns and in the absence of any finding to the contrary, the AAC was of the view that the delay was justified. He, therefore, cancelled both the penalty orders. Hence these appeals before us. 4. On behalf of the Revenue, the Ld. authorised representative supports the orders of the WTO contending that there was no justification for the AAC to cancel the penalty orders in view of the findings of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed that the submission and explanation of the assessee should have been accepted by the authorities below and accordingly the penalty imposed by the WTO was not justified and the order of the AAC may be sustained. On behalf of the assessee, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Addl. CWT vs. Babulal K. Shah and Another(1). 6. We have taken into accoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X