9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year 1972-73, under the provision of law, the return was due on or before 31-7-1972. It was filed on 14-9-1972. On the basis of this return, the ITO proceeded with the process of assessment in accordance with law and finalised the assessment on 18-3-1974 under section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 58,000. Since the return, filed on 14-9-1972, was late by a complete month, the ITO levied penalty of Rs. 455 under section 271(1)(a) on 1-8-1974, which was confirmed in appeal by the AAC by his order dated 17-2-1975 and the matter rested there. The assessee felt aggrieved with the assessment order so made by the ITO and took the matter in appeal up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 8-1-1976, reduced the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty order, however, he has, for the reasons best known to him, not recorded the number of complete months, for which the default has been considered, as was enjoined upon him by law. However, the penalty of Rs. 24,258 was levied upon the assessee. This was taken up in appeal before the AAC and the AAC, also having reiterated the facts, stated by the ITO, confirmed the penalty. 4. After careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we are surprised at the manner in which the authorities below proceeded to penalise the assessee, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, which indicate that the default, if any, was of contributory negligence by both the sides. Apparently, when the assessee filed the return of income on 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at Rs. 53,060 which, in the reassessment proceedings, the ITO has adopted and the penalty for the default under section 271(1)(a) that was confirmed by the AAC, in appeal. The manner of proceeding against the assessee is, therefore, to say the least, quixotican. 6. There is no default, committed by the assessee at the time of reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the penalty levied by the ITO, is, on the facts of the case, without any justification, whatsoever. He has levied the penalty for a default which, on the facts stated supra, was not committed by the assessee, so as to be visited with a huge penalty. In spite of this, the assessee explained that the delay, if it is to be considered, was due to reasonable cause because the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
