9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x dismissing revisions, which in turn were directed against the appellate orders rejecting the plea that the petitioner-assessee was not liable to penalty under s. 271(1)(a) for delay in filing the return. For the assessment year 1967-68, admittedly, the return was filed four months late while for the assessment year 1968-69, it was filed 22 months late. The assessee did not appear before the ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish that fact. When the delay is admitted and the default has taken place under cl. (a) of s. 271 (1), the penalty is imposable if the assessee had delayed in filing the return without reasonable cause. He has prima facie to satisfy the authorities that he had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. Under cl. (a) the penalty is not imposed for any concealment or furnishing inaccurate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfactory. In the present case the position is to the contrary. Though in the first year the return filed was below the exemption limit, yet, admittedly, the assessee was assessed on an income which was higher than the exemption limit. For the second year the revised return was beyond the exemption limit. As such the assessee was not under an obligation to file a return below the exemption limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
