9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinafter referred to as the "assessee") had filed his return of income for the assessment year 1958-59. The same was dealt with and an order of assessment was passed on March 28, 1963. As there was delay in filing the return, the Income-tax Officer directed, inter alia, in the assessment order as follows : "Issue demand notice and challan. Allow L. I. P. Rebate on Rs. 1,069 and on tax paid by R. E. Also issue penalty notice for late filing of the return." In response to the notice served, the assessee raised certain points and stated that there was reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. Considering the submissions, penalty of Rs. 11,167 was imposed. In the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copy of the notice on record with copy of the notice that was served on the assessee and produced by him. His conclusions were as follows : "The notice read with the assessment order should have made it amply clear to the appellant the year for which penalty action was contemplated and for what offence he was being proceeded against. The office copy of the notice is very clear, in that the notice has been issued for failure to file the return. But due to an oversight the portion which deals with the concealment of the particulars of income, etc., was not struck off. On verification of the copy of the notice given to the appellant, it was found that the position is quite the same. The notice in question, therefore, was not invalid. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were open to challenge. As has been observed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and as also borne out from the copy of the assessment order, direction was given by the Income-tax Officer for initiation of proceedings for delay in filing of the return. About that there is no dispute. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner with reference to the original records found that the unnecessary portions in the notice were not deleted. That did not invalidate the notice which was issued. The mere fact that subsequently another notice was issued cannot take away the validity of the first notice, particularly, when there was a clear direction in the order of assessment for initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(a) for delay in filing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
