9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding house at Dhule. Its account year is a calendar year. Penalty under s. 271(1)(a) for late filing of return has levied by ITO at Rs. 2,570 for asst. yr. 1973-74 where the delay was of 7 months as the assessee had filed the return on 22nd March, 1974 while return was due on 15th Aug., 1973. Assesses had filed return showing income of Rs. 27,252 while ITO had assessed it at Rs. 56,367 (which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return for asst. yr. 1973-74 was filed earlier on 22nd March, 1974 AAC held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the entire delay of 7 months. In respect of 1974-75 when the return was filed on 13th July, 1976 he held that the assessee had reasonable cause upto 31st Jan., 1975. He, therefore, condoned the delay of 7 months for the asst. yr. 1974-75. and upheld penalty for 17 months of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , considering the revised quantum of urged that the assessed if at all had reasonable cause only for a period of 6 months from May, 1973 to Nov., 1973. It is next urged the assessee did not file any reply to the show cause notices for the two years by ITO and, therefore, AAC was not justified in admitting evidence regarding Sales Tax Proceedings. It was next urged that when the assessee was so muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74-75. 8. We next take up assessee's appeals against levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75. In both these appeals, assessee has raised preliminary grounds that under provision to s. 271(1)(iii) ITO should have previous approval of IAC before levy of penalty as additions to income made by ITO in both the year were more than Rs. 25,000 each. In this connection, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant for this purpose because it deals with the rectification of an error in computation of tax due to an error in the original computation of tax. The proviso to s. 271(1)(iii) clearly gives a basis namely that the amount of income as determined by ITO on assessment is the basis for getting the previous approval of IAC and, therefore, for interpreting the said provision, we need not go to differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
