9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it was filed on 27th December, 1971. For the asst yr. 1972-73 the return was due on 31st July, 1972 but it was filed on 22nd February, 1973. The assessee stated that there was delay on account of the fact that he could not get his particulars of wealth until the company held its general body meeting. The meeting was held for the accounting year 1970-71 on 25th September, 1971 and for the accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no notice u/s 18(1)(a) was issued by the succeeding officer who levied the penalty. Secondly, it was contented that the assessee could not file the return till the general body meeting was held as most of the particulars of his wealth could be obtained only after the audit of the accounts of the company in which he was a director, was over. The sub-sequent short delay was only with a view to pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty u/s 18(1)(a) though it may be the relevant factor for dealing with the matter u/s 18(B). 3. With regard to legal contention Mr. Das Gupta stated that notice was originally issued u/s 18(1) (a) and there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. He has also stated that in case the notice is necessary to be given again the matter should be sent back. Later on he brought to our notice that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipso facto. All the circumstances will have to be borne in mind. In this case, the assessee filed returns voluntary and paid the taxes. His returns were accepted. This only indicates that there is no wilful disobedience of law on the part of the assessee. In other words, we hold that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the returns in time. The penalties are, therefore, canc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
