9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? " The assessment year with which we are concerned herein is assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year being S.Y. 2021. This reference arises out of penalty proceedings taken against the assessee in respect of a default under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. The following table would furnish the relevant factual data required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of answering the question: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.No. Particulars Date ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Last date for furnishing the return ... 30-6-1966 2. Application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ITO rejected the explanation submitted by the assessee. In appeal, the order of the ITO was confirmed by the AAC. On further appeal, however, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal quashed the order levying penalty. The view of the Tribunal was, (a) that the assessee was justified in presuming that the time to furnish the return was extended up to September 30, 1966 ; (b) that though no return was furnished on or before September 30, 1966, before the period, a notice under s. 139(2) was issued on October 14, 1966 ; (c) that upon receipt of the notice, the assessee bona fide believed that it was entitled to furnish the return within thirty days of the service of such notice and that there was, therefore, reasonable cause for not furnishin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome within the time specified by law. The material consisted of the written explanation furnished by the assessee to the ITO in response to the show-cause notice issued under s. 274. The Tribunal was justified in acting upon the said material in reaching the conclusion that it did in regard to the said periods. With regard to the periods from October 1, 1966, to October 13, 1966, and November 15, 1966, to December 1, 1956, the Tribunal's view was that each period covered a distinct and independent default and that since each default was of less than one month's duration, the penalty could not have been imposed. It has not been urged on behalf of the Revenue that this view of the Tribunal is not justified in law or that one period of default ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
