9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act, 1961. 3. For the asst. yr. 1969-70, in response to service of notice under s. 148 of the Act, the return was to be filed by 16th Sep., 1974, but it was actually filed on 31st Oct., 1974. For this year also, the ld. ITO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. 4. In penalty proceedings, before the ld. ITO, in both the years under consideration, it was submitted that the notices under s. 148 of the Act were served on one Shri K.S. Menon, When Shri V.C. Surana, who used to look after the IT matters, was out of India. After his return, it was found that Shri Menon left for his hometown in Kerala as his father has expired. The notices under s. 148 of the Act were placed before him in the month of Feb., 1974, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble High Court. After the Writ Petition, there was oral discussion with the Department, and ultimately, it was agreed that the assessee may file settlement petition. The assessee also filed returns for both the years under consideration. Thus, it was contended that the ld. ITO was not justified in imposing the penalties. 7. The contention of the assessee did not find favour with the ld. AAC So, he agreed with the finding of the ld. ITO. 8. Before the Tribunal, more or less the same contentions were advanced which were put forth before the authorities below. The ld. counsel again reiterated his contentions and stated that immediately after the service of the notices under s. 148 of the Act, Writ Petition was filed before the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation, failed to file the returns within time. 10. We have heard the parties, and perused the entire evidence on record. From the material on record, it comes out that for the asst. yr. 1966-66, notice under s. 148 of the Act was served on 29th Dec., 1973 and the return was to be filed on or before 29th Jan., 1974. Similarly, for the asst. yr. 1969-70, return under s. 148 of the Act was to be filed on or before 16th Sep., 1974, but it was filed on 31st Oct., 1974. The assessee filed the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the validity of the notices under s. 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court issued notice to the Deptt., and the same was served in March, 1974. On 18th July, 1974, the assessee filed applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re reasonable causes, which prevented the assessee from filing the returns in time. In any view of the matter, there is no material worth the name from which it could be established that the conduct of the assessee has been contumacious or dishonest. In the present case, at the most, it could be called that there was technical default. But, for such technical default, no penalty is leviable. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa (1). 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that the ld. AAC was wrong in sustaining the impugned orders of penalty. Accordingly, they are cancelled. 12. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
