9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 1967-68 was yet justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 3,150 imposed by the Income-tax Officer ? (2) Whether, on an appeal against an order of penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) for default of a notice under section 139(2) of the Act, the Tribunal on facts was right in sustaining the penalty for the period of default falling under section 139(i)? " The relevant facts of the case can be culled from the statement of the case. The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year involved is 1967-68. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,150 under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), due to default for delayed submission of a return, rejecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty for the default of notice under s. 139(2) was served on the assessee on November 14, 1966, because it was clear from the order of penalty as also the quantum of penalty imposed that the ITO purported to impose penalty for default under s. 139(1) and not for the default under s. 139(2). The Tribunal, therefore, considered that the penalty order should not be held to be invalid for labelling a wrong section only and that the default of the assessee for noncompliance under s. 139(1) clothed the ITO with power to impose penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act, although by mistake the ITO made a remark that the assessee was a defaulter for non-compliance under s. 139(2). In view of the observations made above, the Tribunal came to the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 139(1) of the Act. It is conceded by both the parties that the ITO imposed the penalty for default under s. 139(1) which was also upheld by the AAC and the Appellate Tribunal. There are numerous decisions of various High Courts to the effect that an assessee is liable to penalty for not submitting his return as required under s. 139(1) of the Act, even though he subsequently files a return in response to a notice under s. 139(2) of the Act and an assessment is made on the basis of that return. Various decisions have been cited in the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of Jamuna Das Mannalal v. CIT (Taxation Case Nos. 37 and 38 of 1975-[1985] 152 ITR 261 and in view of these decisions, the decision of this court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
