9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1980, respectively. The same were filed on 21st July, 1980 and 29th Aug., 1980, respectively. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty should not be levied for late filing of the returns. In response to the notice, it is explained to the ITO that the assessee is a co-operative society and in its case audit is compulsory and audit is conducted by the State Government. Therefore, the audit report was finalised in the month of July, 1980 and immediately thereafter the return was filed. Therefore, there is no delay which can be said unreasonable on the facts of these cases. ITO was not satisfied with the explanation. He levied the penalty of Rs. 68,647 and Rs. 18,040 in both the years, respectively. 2. Being aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under s. 273. The relevant facts are that the returns were filed declaring incomes of Rs. 4,14,630 and Rs. 7,21,840 for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively. The assessee was assessed at the income of Rs. 9,28,540 and Rs. 20,27,334 for both the years, respectively. Thus according to the ITO, the tax assessed is more than 75 per cent than the tax paid in both the years. Therefore, assessee is liable for penalty under s. 273(a) of the Act. Accordingly he issued the show cause notice to the assessee as to why penalty should not be levied under s. 273 of the Act for paying the less advance tax than the tax payable under the assessment order. In response to the notice, assessee explained that there is no justification for levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a case is not justified when assessee bona fidely paid the due tax. In the case of Jaipur Metals Electricals Ltd. vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 721 (Raj) their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court held that "there Tribunal was in error when it held that the estimate furnished on 13th Sept., 1956 ceased to the honest" by subsequent events. The levy of penalty on the assessee was, therefore, not valid in law as it amounted to punishing the assessee for his incapacity to predict." 9. Considering the facts of these cases and the decision of their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court referred above, in our view, there is no case for penalty under s. 273(a) also. Accordingly, the penalty so levied is cancelled. 10. In the result, the appeals of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
