9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn Revised return Rs. Rs. 1964-65 9,304 14,304 1965-66 9,913 14,932 1966-67 8,903 15,403 1967-68 17,715 20,715 1968-69 22,397 24,397 The ITO accepted the revised returns and passed the assessment orders on different dates of August, 1969, except for the year 1966-67,for which the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 16,903. In the assessment orders he recorded a finding that the assessee filed returns late and that he had not filed estimate of income under s. 212(3) of the I.T. Act. Hence, proceedings for levying the penalty were initiated. In due course a notice was issued to show cause why penalty under ss. 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Act be not imposed. The assessee made an application to the CIT under s. 271(4A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiating penalty proceedings, was amended with effect from 1st April, 1971, by the Taxation Laws (Amend.) Act, 1970. Previously, the limitation was two years commencing from the date of the assessment order. After the amendment, the limitation was changed to two years commencing from the end of the financial year in which the assessment order was passed. In the present case, assessment orders were passed in August, 1969. Therefore, if the amendment was applicable, the period of limitation commenced from 1st April, 1970, and continued till 31st March, 1972. The prescription of period of limitation is a matter of procedure. Any amendment in this regard is retrospective in the sense it is applicable to all those matters which are pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation, whatsoever, either for the delay in filing the return or for not filing the estimate of income. It is apparent that since limitation was going to expire on March 31, 1972, the ITO was anxious to complete the proceedings before that date. He did adjourn the hearing on March 20, 1972, but fixed March 24, 1972. On this date, the assessee again made an application for adjournment, but the same was refused on the view that the CIT had by his order dated 8th March, 1972, rejected the assessee's application for waiver or reduction of the penalty. Since the assessee had not appeared himself but had only got an application sent, the ITO, after rejecting the application, proceeded to consider the matter on merits and passed the penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the application for adjournment was considered by him. It was hence difficult for the ITO to know that the assessee wants an adjournment to enable him to furnish an explanation for the delay. This could not be assumed by the ITO. If the assessee had been present, he could have submitted the explanation without asking for a fresh opportunity. Take a case where the assessee had really no explanation to offer on facts ; he as a responsible advocate could have taken the view that it was unnecessary to prolong the proceedings when the period of limitation was expiring shortly. It cannot hence be assumed that the assessee would have necessarily asked for an adjournment on March 24, 1972. In the circumstances, it is difficult to castigate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
