9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The IT return of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was due on 30th July, 1974. The sums was, however, filed on 17th Nov. 1975. For later submission of return of his income, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that he had handed over the relevant papers to his Auditor in time, but the Auditor did not file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal. 4. After going through the record and hearing the ld. representatives of the parties, we do not find any substance in this appeal. 5. The plea of the assessee that the delay in filing the return was attributable to the negligence of his Auditor is not supported by any material on record. There is no evidence to ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to file the return of his income and, as such, no penalty could be levied on him for the delay in filing the return. In support of his case, he relies upon CIT, Bombay vs. Allied Silk Mills (1982) 26 CTR (Bom) 132 : (1983) 140 ITR 428 (Bom). This contention of the assessee is also not acceptable. IN the first instance, this plea is merely an after-thought because the same was never taken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
