9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be filed only till 31-3-1992 after which the proceedings became time barred and hence the D.D.I (E) was not justified in imposing penalty by calculating the period of delay up to 16-4-1993. It had also claimed that it was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return but that ground was rejected by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), therefore, considered that the delay should be calculated up to 31-3-1992, i.e., 515 days and, therefore, reduced the penalty to Rs. 51,500. 2. While the assessee has come in appeal before me the revenue is not in appeal against the relief given by the learned CIT(A). 3. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that in the first instance since the assessment was time barred no penalty could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ........................................... (h) ................................................................................. he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than one hundred rupees, but which may extend to two hundred rupees, for every day during which the failure continues : " I find that these provisions are in noticeable contrast when read with the provisions of section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act which read as under : " If the Assessing Officer or the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person......" It may be noticed that whereas penalty under section 271(1) and its subclauses can be initiated on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I need not mention that the provisions of section 139(4A) stipulate that if the total income of a charitable or religious trust as computed under the Income-tax Act, without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, it is required to furnish a return of such income of the previous year in similar manner as any other assessee is required to furnish under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. From what has been mentioned above it is clear that a total income of the assessee being Rs. 1,38,116 was much above the taxable limit before giving effect to provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act and hence the assessee was under a legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
