9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come in this case was due by 30th June, 1968., and the assessee in fact filed it only on 26th May, 1969., Before the ITO no explanation was given for the delay in filing the return of income. In the circumstances, the ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 2,119 under s. 271(1) (a) of the Act. It was explained that the assessee had filed the return showing the status as a firm and in view of this, it was sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee Bona fide believed that the assessment would be completed in the status of a registered firm. Since the returned income liable to be taxed in the case of a firm, It was submitted that no penalty would be leviable under s. 271 (1) (a) of the Act. It was argued that even if the application for registration was filed a bit late, it was submitted that the assessee should not be penalised on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e confirmed. 4. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made before us by the rival parties. The assessee in this case had filed the return of income in the status of a firm and the income returned was below the taxable limit in the case of a registered firm. The contention of the Revenue is that the assessee at the time of filing of the return did not choose to file the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of the Act. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into account we hold that late filing of the application for registration should not be taken as a ground for rejecting the contention raised by the assessee that there was a Bona fide belief that the correct status for this year would be that of a registered firm. Taking this aspect into account, we are of the view that no penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
