9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved on the assessee on 25th of December, 1967, and that for the other year on the 12th of June, 1970. The assessee, however, filed first a return for the assessment year 1967-68, on the 12th of June, 1971, and for 1970-71, on 4th June, 1971. The WTO being of the view that the assessee had failed to file the returns in time without any reasonable excuse issued notice under s. 18(1)(a). The assessee's explanation was that one K. P. Chaterji, advocate, had been looking after his affairs from the period of his minority and had also been maintaining accounts and valuation of the property. The assessee was not aware of all the facts necessary for evaluation of the property as he relied upon Sri K. P. Chaterji exclusively in these matters. An aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rala High Court in the case of Hajee K. Assainar v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 423, the Tribunal held that the penalty should be imposed at the rate prevailing before the amendment, as it related to an assessment year falling earlier than when the amendment was effected in the statute. Both the revenue and the assessee sought reference of certain questions of law to this court and acceding to the request, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring the deposition of Shri K. P. Chaterji, advocate, contained in para. 8 of his affidavit thereby upholding the penalty for the assessment years 1967-68 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 26, that as the assessee was not guilty of any contumacious or dishonest conduct, and as he had not acted in conscious disregard of his obligations the penalty imposed was unjustified. The substratum for argument on this question is that there was delay in filing the returns on account of the mistaken advice of Sri K. P. Chaterji, advocate, who was looking after the cases of the assessee. Unfortunately, for the assessee, on the frame of the question as submitted, it is not possible to go into this aspect of the controversy, for, the question invites our opinion about the correctness of the order of the Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal has ignored para. 8 of the affidavit of Sri K. P. Chaterji. In para. 8 of the affidavit of Sri K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
