9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed against the order of assessments. No compliance of notice under section 18(2) for proceedings under section 18(1)(a) was made in both the years. The tax payable for these two years were Rs. 500 and Rs. 550 and penalties imposed were Rs. 38,500 and Rs. 35,750 respectively. 2. The learned AAC confirmed the penalties rejecting the argument of the assessee that as he was proceeding on Haj Pilgrimage, he did not file the returns in compliance to the notices under section 17. It was also pleaded, due to the certain family disputes the assessee forgot to file the returns. This explanation was not also accepted by the AAC. 3. The learned authorised representative of the assessee, Shri Prakash Narain, filed an additional ground agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are already on record. Service of notices of penalties had not been clearly proved by record. The envelop, which was sent to the assessee, containing the assessment orders and the penalty notices of both the assessment years were sent back to the senders with a remark, that the assessee had changed the place. No further evidence or service could be produced before us at the time of hearing. The embargo of submitting new ground at this stage put by the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 had been distinguished by their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 778. Their Lordships held that the Supreme Court was not dealing with the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim can be allowed by the Tribunal on the footing other than that on which it was based before the lower departmental authorities. Before the Tribunal the assessee could justifiably change the ground and the Tribunal was under a duty to entertain the submission and to decide on merits. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, however, in the case of Gappumal Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 78 opined that plea of interest forgone on commercial consideration raised for the first time before the Tribunal could be disallowed by it. This case is not applicable in the present fact. Their Lordships had held that it was within the power of the Tribunal to reject the plea first time urged before it when such rejection is proper. Their Lordships al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e net wealth and the claim of annuity as exempted from the wealth-tax was rejected. Before the Tribunal it was contended that the beneficiaries and the shares were determinate and known and the trust, therefore, should not have been assessed under section 21(1). The Tribunal refused to entertain the ground. Their Lordships accepted the decision of the Tribunal. It is apparent that the claim under section 21(1) was not pressed before the AAC which was refused also by the Tribunal. In the present case the assessee had rejected the legality of imposition of penalty and the same stand has been repeated before the Tribunal on the new plea on the basis of evidences on record. The case is, therefore, distinguishable. 7. The matter was, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
