9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, dated 3-6-1996, the Department is objecting to the reduction of penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1993-94, from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 1,000. 2. The facts concerning the matter, in brief, are that according to the DDIT (Exemption), New Delhi, the assessee was liable to file its return for the year under consideration u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h fact made it liable to file the return under section 139(4A) of the Act. A penalty of Rs. 12,200 was thus imposed under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The submission of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was that it was running an educational institution and hence its income was exempt under section 10(22) of the Act, it was pleaded that for the alleged delay in filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was that as per the assessee s P L Account for the year under consideration, copy placed in the paper book, there was excess of expenditure of Rs. 74,320 over the income and hence there was in any case no liability on assessee s part to file the return under section 139(4A) of the Act. In this connection, my attention was invited to the Tribunal s order (SMC II Bench, New Delhi) dated 9-8- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord any finding on that aspect, it does not, however, preclude me from declining to interfere in the matter, incidentally, this view finds support from the ratio of the Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Smt. S. Vijayalakshmi [2000] 242 ITR 46. As a matter of abundant precaution, I would like to record that legally the plea of the Department that penalty below the prescribed limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
