9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned standing counsel for the Revenue. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated March 31, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for waiver of penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(b) of the Act. The contention is that, on the facts and circumstances, the penalty should have been waived by the Income-tax Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not made in good faith. The finding is that "the assessee admittedly had income of Rs. 1,16,970 within the accounting year and when notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(a) was issued, the assessee had not responded to the said notice. More than three opportunities were given but the assessee did not bother to comply with them. The assessee, as a matter of fact, did not realise his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess stated that no person as stated in the notice is at the given address. The Income-tax Commissioner further recorded that the fact is that the assessee's address is the same, as given in the petition, which was filed before the Income-tax Commissioner. The Commissioner further recorded that the assessee did not co-operate in the matter. In view of the aforesaid findings, the question is wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uasi-judicial power and even in case some of the conditions were not fulfilled, he should have proportionately reduced the penalty. The argument is misconceived as even the authority, exercising quasi-judicial power has to decide in terms of the provisions under the Act, not contrary to the same. When the provisions contained a minimum requirement before considering either reduction or waiver of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
