9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and December 20, 1994. The contextual facts depict that the petitioner-firm had furnished a return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 with the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer processed the return under section 143(3) of the 1961 Act and except for making routine additions in respect of interest paid to partners to the tune of Rs. 4,000 from out of loss of Rs. 13,484 claimed in bardana account, and another amount of Rs. 1,000 from out of expenditure incurred for tea, coffee, etc., and for a balance-sheet difference of Rs. 87, the returned figures were accepted by him. By the same order the Income-tax Officer also granted continuation of registration in terms of section 185 of the 1961 Act. The assessment order was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of justice. The petitioner-firm moved an application under section 254 of 1961 Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but the application was rejected vide order dated December 20, 1994. The said order, including other orders have been assailed by the petitioner-firm in the instant writ petition. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-firm vehemently canvassed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 25,000 in terms of section 271E of the 1961 Act merely on the basis of an erroneous assumption in respect of the petitioner's conduct in not having filed the appropriate and relevant documents before the Income-tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal had committed illegality in deleting the penalty under section 271D. The assessee exporter in that case took the cash loan in contravention of section 269SS because he was in urgent need of money for making the time bound supplies. The Division Bench of this court under those circumstances found it as a reasonable cause for setting aside the penalty. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to show the reasonable cause in contravening the provisions contained in section 269T, therefore, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in passing the impugned judgment. In my opinion, this is not a fit case warranting interference under article 227 of the Constitution. Consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
