9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r extension of time which was allowed up to January 1, 1973, but the return of income was filed on March 12, 1973. The ITO completed the reassessment under s. 148 of the Act on a total income of Rs. 2,74,300. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) and issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. A partner of the assessee-firm appeared before the ITO. On the statement of that partner that the penalty should be levied only for the default of one: month, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,100 under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act, by treating the assessee-firm as unregistered as per provisions of s. 271(2) of the Act. The legality of the imposition of penalty was not challenged before the AAC in appeal by the assessee. The only gri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t u/s. 148, treating the firm as unregistered at both the stages as provided u/s. 271(2) ? " With a view to decide the question of law, the relevant provisions of ss. 271 (1) and 271(2) of the Act may be reproduced, which are as under: " 271. (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner [or the Commissioner (Appeals)] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by notice given under sub-section (2) of section 139 or section 148 or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month during which the default continued, has to be charged as penalty. The words " assessed tax " have been defined in the Explanation to the section itself, which clearly provides that " assessed tax." would mean tax as reduced by the sum, if any, deducted at source under Chap. XVII-B or paid in advance under Chap. XVII-C. It may be pointed out that the Tribunal, though reproduced the provisions of s. 271(1)(a)(i)(b) in its order, but failed to reproduce and take notice of the Explanation added to the section. It cannot be disputed that where the provision of law itself is abundantly clear and specially in a taxing statute, any other interpretation is not possible. The scheme of the Act appears to be that even though a registered firm ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
