9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arred by time ? " It is necessary to state a few facts. The assessment years are 1955-56 and 1957-58. On December 21, 1966, the IAC passed orders under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, imposing penalties of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 4,000, respectively, on the assessee for the above two assessment years. At the end of his order, the IAC directed the ITO to issue necessary demand notices and challans and collect the amount of penalty. In pursuance of the order of the IAC, the ITO issued notices of demand on the same date and these were duly served on the assessee. Paragraph 7 of the demand notice was in the following terms: "7. If you intend to appeal against the penalty under section 271(1)(c)/interest payable under section 216 you may prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in the preferring of the appeals against the orders of the IAC. They, therefore, dismissed the appeals as barred by time. At the request of the assessee, the two questions set out earlier have been referred for the decision of this court. Though the reference has been listed for a number of days, there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. We have, therefore, heard Mr. M. L. Verma, learned counsel for the department, who has placed before us all the necessary facts and also presented the case with fairness and equity. The Supreme Court recently had occasion to consider a similar position in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation Act but rather to follow it albeit on wrong reading of the situation." Looking at the facts of the present case in the light of the above principle, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal on the general ground of the negligence of the counsel. All the relevant facts had to be appreciated in the context of which the delay occurred in the present case. Under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the penalty was imposed by the ITO and from the order of penalty there was an appeal to the AAC. Actually this explains the terms of the notice of demand, which, in the present case, appears to have been sent to the assessee without the necessary, modifications consequent on the amendments of the law. Though a reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oubt some force in this submission. It has been held that the, court has a discretion to return the question unanswered when there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. But this is a discretion vested in the court. The question in this reference is a very short one and in the interests of justice we do not think it would be correct to return the question unanswered although the assessee has not appeared before us. For the reasons mentioned above, we answer the reference as stated already. There will be no order as to costs. D. R. KHANNA J.-I would only like to add that had the assessee taken care to peruse the provisions contained in s. 253(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it should have been plain that an appeal against an order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
