9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for filing the return Date when the return was actually filed Penalty imposed by the ITO 1969-70 30-9-69 19-12-73 Rs. 33,825 1970-71 30-9-70 -do- Rs. 30,882 1971-72 30-9-71 -do- Rs. 39,600 1972-73 31-7-72 -do- Rs. 13,616 3. In appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee before the ld. AAC that firstly the notices under s. 271(1)(a) issued on 19th Dec., 1973 had fixed the date 20th Jan., 1974 for hearing which was a Sunday and, therefore, the notices were invalid and secondly that the said notices were served on Shri H.P. Singh, Advocate, who did not have the authority to receive the notices on behalf of the assessee and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the assessment years in question. He also pointed out that the assessments were completed on 19th Dec., 1973. Next, he pointed out that at the time of settlement the ld. CIT had stated that the penalties were to be levied under s. 271(1)(a) to the minimum extent with agreement. He, therefore, submitted that the issuance of the notices was only a formality. Proceeding further, he submitted on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC) that if no opportunity of hearing be held to have been afforded to the assessee, the matter may be set aside with the direction to the ITO for giving to the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing before completing the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was an idle formality. The notices were issued under s. 271(1)(a)/274. It is not under dispute before us that the said notices dt. 19th Dec., 1973 fixed 20th Jan., 1974 for hearing even though this date was a Sunday. Thus, on the basis of the authority of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nanda Daya Ram Jat vs. Raja Ram Ramji Jat, it is clear that there was not notice and no proper initiation of proceedings under s. 271(1)(a). In the case of Guduthur Bros., the initiation of the penalty proceedings was not in dispute. It is only thereafter that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee. It is on those facts that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the ITO had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
