9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Surtax Act if the assessee has filed the return under section 5(2) of that Act but had failed to file the return under section 5(1) of that Act?" The dispute relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows: The assessee a public limited company was required to furnish its return of income of chargeable profits under section 5(1) of the Surtax Act, 1964, by September 30, 1973. However, the assessee filed its return on October 30, 1974, in response to a notice under section 8(a) of the Surtax Act. Penalty was levied under section 9(a) by the Assessing under section 9(a) by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the requirement of filing return within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Officer under sub-section (1) of section 6, or has concealed the particulars of the chargeable profits or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such profits, he may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the amount of surtax payable, a sum not exceeding-- (a) where the person has failed to furnish the return required under section 5, the amount of surtax (chargeable under the provisions of this Act); (b) in any other case, the amount of surtax which would have been avoided if the return made had been accepted as correct: Provided that the Income-tax Officer shall not impose any penalty under this section without the previous authority of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner." It is now we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sub-section (2) of section 5, or to produce or cause to be produced, any accounts, etc., he can be penalised with fine which may extend to Rs.500 which may further be extended to Rs.10 for every day during which the default continues. Similarly, there is simple imprisonment provided for false statements in section 21. There is also simple imprisonment provided for abetment of false returns as in section 22. But from these provisions, we do not find anywhere any reference for delay in submission of the return under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act. A similar question was considered by this court in CIT v. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 561. It was held that under similar circum- stances, penalty was not leviable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
