9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income had been filed on 14th Aug., 1973 and was as such in time and hence there was no default at all on the part of the assessee. It was also urged that the return of income filed on 15th April, 1974 was a duplicate of the return originally filed on 14th Aug., 1973. In support of the fact that the return had been filed on 14th Aug., 1973 the original receipt issued by the Department was produced before the ITO. It was also pointed out to the ITO that the tax payable in terms of s. 140A had been paid on 17th Dec., 1973 which supported the assessee's contention regarding the filing of the return of income on 14th Aug., 1973. The ITO, however, did not feel satisfied. On examining the receipt register it was found that there was no en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce could be drawn from this fact. The learned counsel for the assessee further stated that as soon as notice under s. 139(2) was received by the assessee, a duplicate return was filed by way of cooperation with the Department. As an alternative, it was stated that in this case the closing of the books of account had been delayed from year to year on account of the serious sickness of the partner Shri Kanmal and on that score similar penalties for asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1971-72 had been deleted by the ITAT. The learned AAC considered these submissions. He, however, came to the conclusion that the ITO was justified in imposing the impugned penalty for the reasons stated in paragraph 3 which is reproduced below: "3. I have considered the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Against the order of the learned AAC the assessee has come up in appeal. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that the levy of the penalty was not justified at all. It was stated that the return of income had been filed on 14th Aug., 1973 and thus there was no default at all on the part of the assessee. In this context the learned counsel produced before us the original receipt on loose sheet of paper issued by the Department. A photostat copy of the same has been filed. It was urged that the authenticity of this receipt is not in doubt and, therefore, it has to be accepted that the return of income was filed on 14th Aug., 1973. The learned counsel further stated that if the entry was not made in the Dak Regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4th Aug., 1973 cannot be questioned. Besides, the fact that tax was paid under s. 140A on 17th Dec., 1973 supports the claim of the assessee in this regard. Another fact which supports the assessee's claim is that the partners of the assessee firm filed their return on 26th Nov., 1973 which could not have been possible if the firm's return had not been filed before that date. The assessee filed the duplicate return on 15th April, 1974 in response to a notice under s. 139(2). The fact that this return was not marked duplicate is not of such significance. If the facts show that the return was a duplicate one, no adverse inference can be drawn from not making it as a duplicate. Also the fact that entry on 14th Aug., 1973 did not exist in the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
