9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a). Under s. 139(1) return was due to be filed by the assessee on or before 31st July, 1976 but no return was filed. A notice under s. 148 was issued by the ITO on 7th Feb., 1979. In response to that, the assessee filed return on 24th Aug., 1981. The ITO, therefore, issued a show cause penalty notice why penalty be not levied for belated filing of return. The assessee explained that return under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as the assessee believed that his income was below taxable limit, no return was filed under s. 139(1). He drew our attention to s. 139(9) and argued that the law required every assessee to file a correct return and not a defective return. The submission is that under the Explanation, cl. (c) sub-cl. (i) to the proviso of sub-s. (9) of s. 139, the return must be accompanied by the proof of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us that the details of the tax deducted at source were available to the assessee as per certificates dt. 27th July, 1976 and the assessee would have filed the return with the help of those details. The argument of Shri Singh is erroneous. The question is not the one whether the assessee had the details of the tax deducted at source, but the question is whether the assessee was in a position to gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch proof and had he asked the assessee to do so, then he would have given the necessary proof in this regard. The contention of the assessee is correct and the Revenue has failed to show that the assessee was ever called upon by the ITO to tender the proof that the Department was pressed by the assessee to issue the TDS certificates at an early date. We, therefore, hold that the assessee was preve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
