9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing, Shri U.C. Jain and Shri Rajendra Jain were present on behalf of the assessee and Shri D.N. Pareek was present on behalf of the Department. 3. We have heard the learned rival representatives and have perused evidence on record. 4. In this case, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), was levied by the AO. 5. The AO imposed Rs. 5,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Authorised Representative has relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. K.K. Mansinghka in ITA No. 9207/Bom/1990, dt. 26th July, 1996. The Tribunal in that case, under identical situation, deleted the penalty under s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The excerpt of the decision are placed at p. 3 of the paper book which is being reproduced below: "We have carefully considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are convinced that the case of the assessee is justified. When the AO chose (not) to pass best judgment assessment under s. 144 on the date on which non-compliance by assessee is alleged and particularly when the assessee has sought adjournment for reasons mentioned in the application, this is not a case of non-compliance which can attract penalty. The learned Authorised Representative has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
