9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, demand notice under section 156 of the said Act and the penalty orders dated October 7, 1974. It is stated that the notices under section 271(1)(a) read with section 274 of the said Act were issued on October 4, 1974, by respondent No. 4, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range V (Central), Calcutta, without having any competence, authority and/or jurisdiction under the new Act as it appeared to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-V (Central), Calcutta, that the petitioner had, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of total income which the petitioner was required to furnish under section 22(2) of the old Act or under section 139 of the new Act within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and/or valid under the relevant old Act or the new Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, respondent No. 4 herein, for the first time, completed the assessment on the basis of the revised returns filed by the petitioner under section 22(3) of the old Act and section 139(5) of the new Act. The orders of assessment and the penalty notice under section 274 for not filing the return within the time allowed were separately issued. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4, having no competence, authority or jurisdiction to issue the demand notice under section 29 of the old Act and/or under section 156 of the new Act had taken steps demanding the penalty for each assessment year. Elaborating all these facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 271(1)(a) of the new Act is illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. The delay in Ming the return was duly explained before respondent No. 4 and there was no material on record to show that the explanation given by the petitioner was not based on any fact and, as such, there was no offence committed by the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the court to the decision reported in CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433. It was found by the Supreme Court of India that the time allowed for furnishing a voluntary return is the time specified in section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. When the Income-tax Officer extends the date for furnishing the return under proviso (iii) to section 139(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee must be attributed to that provision ; they were not returns furnished within the contemplation of section 139(4) ; (iii) that, therefore, the penalty provisions did not come into play at all. Learned lawyer appearing for the income-tax authorities has, however, submitted that the acts done and/or caused to have been, done by the respondent are well-justified and in accordance with law and the acts complained of are neither contrary to and/or inconsistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the allegations in the writ petition are otherwise unwarranted and uncalled for. With all anxiety, this court has heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties. Undisputedly, the petitioner has paid all income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
