9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, he had filed the return of loss and while passing the assessment order on November 29, 1971, the Assessing Officer had directed issuance of penalty notice for concealment of the amount of Rs. 16,000. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under section 271(4A) of the Act on the ground that he had made full and complete disclosure voluntarily and in good faith but the said application happened to be rejected on February 14, 1975, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal. In reply to the notice issued to the petitioner for imposition of the penalty, he submitted by his reply dated June 25, 1975, that there were no mala fides on his part and merely because default of concealment has been committed penalty is not requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but has not given his finding nor has he considered that in the return of loss where the assessee has already suffered loss, imposition of the penalty would in fact be a genuine hardship. On the other hand, Shri Tankha, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the order passed under section 271(4A) having become final the petitioner was not entitled to file an application under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act and even if it was a return of loss and there were no recovery proceedings the petitioner was required to prove that he would in fact suffer a genuine hardship. He submits that the order passed by the Commissioner does not call for any interference. According to section 271(4A), a party could move an application before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is behalf by an assessee, and after recording his reasons for so doing, reduce or waive the amount of any penalty if he is satisfied that to do otherwise would cause genuine hardship to the assessee, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the assessee has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him. It is not disputed before me that in the instant case when the return was a return of loss no recovery of the tax was required to be started against the petitioner. The observation made by the Commissioner that assessee was not co-operative in recovery proceedings would certainly be contrary to the record and would show non-application of mind. So far as the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
