9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 19th Oct., 1968 on a total income of Rs. 9,690. Subsequently, the ITO issued notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, on 1st March, 1972 and it was served on 8th March, 1972. The assessee was under obligation to file the return within 30 days of the service of the said notice. But he failed to filed the same within the time. The return was file on 13th March 1973. The assessment was completed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that notice was served on 16th July, 1976. Thus, he held that the first contention was not acceptable. On the second contention, the ITO held that the explanation given by the assessee was not satisfactory. According to him, there was no evidence on record which could explain the default of the assessee. Consequently, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,420 under s. 271 (1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the case of Addl. CIT vs. I.M. Patel Co. 1977 CTR (Guj) 320 : (1977) 107 ITR 214 (Guj). The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the assessee gave explanation before the authorities below. The said explanation is quite reasonable. At any stage neither the ITO nor the AAC required the assessee to produce any evidence in support of the explanation. The explanation given by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct that the explanation given by the assessee was not accepted by the ITO. Before considering the explanation of the assessee, the ITO did not point out any circumstances showing that the conduct of the assessee has been contumacious or dishonest and the assessee in conscious disregard of his obligation failed to file the return within the time. On the said facts, the decision of the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
