2005 (2) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal"), has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 18, 1985, relating to the assessment year 1973-74 for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in remitting the penalty for lat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r section 139(8) of the Act, the return was deemed to have been filed within the extended time allowed by the Income-tax Officer. Thus, it was held that no penalty under section 271(1)(a) could be levied. For this purpose, the Tribunal followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433. Learned counsel for the Revenue has pointed out that the ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eliance on the decisions of the Patna High Court in Jamunadas Mannalal v. CIT [1987] 164 ITR 66 and the Madras High Court in Ravi Steel Corporation v. Income-tax Officer [1991] 187 ITR 684. We find merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the Revenue. It has been correctly pointed out that the Supreme Court under the unamended provisions of clause (iii) of the proviso to section 139(1) h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X