9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the ground that the proceedings were not initiated in the course of regular assessment within the meaning of section 273 read with section 2(40) of the Act ? " Assessee is a forest contractor. The relevant assessment years are 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1970-71. Assessee omitted to file his returns and action was taken by the ITO under s. 147 of the Act and the assessee was directed to file returns under s. 139(2) of the Act. The ITO initiated proceedings under s. 273(b) of the Act for the imposition of penalty and after hearing the assessee levied penalties of different amounts for the three years. The assessee appealed and the AAC vacated the penalties by saying: "On going through the assessment records it is noticed that the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1970, or any subsequent assessment year, is satisfied that any assessee (a) has furnished under section 212 an estimate of the advance tax payable by him which he knew or has reason to believe to be untrue, or (b) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish an estimate of the advance tax payable by him in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 212, or (c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish an estimate of the advance tax payable by him in accordance with the provisions of sub section (3A) of section 212, he may direct that such person shall, in addition to the amount of tax, if any, payable by him, pay by way of penalty a sum-. ...... .." Assessments for the th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or s. 144, as the case may be, there was no necessity for providing a separate clause in s. 246 of the Act. Learned standing counsel criticised the two Bench decisions relied upon by the Tribunal by contending that all the provisions in the statute have not been kept in view. According to him, the principles indicated in the Bombay decision in Deviprasad Kejriwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 180 and in the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Geeta Ram Kali Ram [1980] 121 ITR 708, should have been relied upon in preference to the two decisions accepted by the Tribunal as laying down the correct law. Learned standing counsel further contends that " regular assessment" is not " original assessment" and the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
