9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood at Rs. 7,67,380. 3. Assessee had filed extension application on 27th June, 1970, 30th Sep, 1970 and 31 Dec, 1970 seeking extension upto 30th Sep, 1970, 31st Dec, 1970 and 31st Dec, 1971on the ground that the income tax return had not been filed and therefore, the wealth tax return could not be filed. WTO did not reply to these extension applications. The income tax return was filed on 31st March, 1971. 4. It is claimed that another extension application was filed on 15th March, 1971 seeking extension upto 30th June, 1971. However, no evidence of having filed the said application was produced either before the WTO nor before the AAC nor before us. We will, therefore, ignore the said claim. 5. In this background, the WTO levied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sitaram Singhania (1979) 120 ITR 154 (Pat). Thus, non-signing of extension application by assessee is not fatal and is only an irregularity. 7. In view of the aforesaid decisions of Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, we uphold the AAC order that the assessee has reasonable cause upto 31st March, 1971 upto which he has applied for extension of time for filing I.T. return for asst. yr. 1970-71. We have already noted that the income tax return was filed on 3rd March, 1971. We have further noted that there is no evidence for filling application on 15th March, 1971 asking for extension upto 30th June, 1971, nor had been told of any reasons why the wealth tax return could not be filed after the income-tax return had been filed. No new assets had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the aforesaid decisions of Bombay and Gujarat High Courts referred to in para 6 above, we uphold the order of AAC cancelling the penalty for asst. yr. 1975-76 as assessee had applied for extension of time till 30th Jan, 1976 when he filed the WT return. 9A. The next controversy is the rate at which penalty is to be levied for three months default in asst. yr. 1970-71 for which return was filed on 27th July, 1971. The ld counsel for assessee relied on Mayarani Panj vs. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (SC) 191; (1986) 157 ITR 330 (SC) where the controversy was whether for asst. yr. 1961-62 penalty should be levied under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act 1922 and the Supreme Court considered the provisions of s. 297(2)(g) which laid down that the proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
