9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1962-63, in respect of late filing of the return. The assessee's case for these years was that he filed the returns on May 4, 1963, whereas the department's case was that the returns had been filed on October 7, 1966. The ITO in all the cases came to the conclusion that the assessee's contention was incorrect, and, in this view of the matter, he calculated penal interest as well as penalty on the basis that the returns were filed on October 7, 1966. Aggrieved by the orders of the ITO the assessee filed an appeal before the AAC. In Case No. 170 of 1973, the AAC dismissed the assessee's appeal. In Case No. 64 of 1973, the appeal was partly allowed, and it was held that the return had been filed on May 4, 1963, as alleged by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reducing the amount of penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? " Case No. 170/73 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the return of income was filed on May 4, 1963, and consequently in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? " The applications filed by the department were dismissed on the ground that no question of law arose out of the orders of the Tribunal. Consequently, the department has filed applications to this court under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law arising out of its orders. Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the fact that the authorised representative of the assessee asked for time on May 4, 1963, for filing the return for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, and from this fact, which, according to Mr. Mehta, is conclusive, it must be inferred that the returns for these two years had not been filed on May 4, 1963. All that we can say is that it was possible for the Tribunal to have come to the conclusion to which Mr. Mehta has persuaded us to arrive at. It is all a question of inference and if the Tribunal thought it fit to accept the contention advanced by the assessee and refused to draw an adverse inference against him on the basis of the representation made by his authorised representative, we cannot say that the finding is based on no eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
