9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the case, it would be useful to produce relevant provision of section 271 (1) (a) as under: "271 (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by notice given under sub-section (2) of section 139 or section 148 or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by sub-section (1) of section 139 or by such notice as the case may be." 3. For the assessment year under appeal, the ITO noted in his or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show filling of the return in time, the duplicate return was filed on 19th December 1975. It was also stated that when the case for the asst. yr. 1972-73 onwards were taken up for hearing, the assessee came to know that there was no return available on record. The assessment proceedings for the year 1972-73 onwards were completed on 5th September, 1974 and till that date, the assessee was stated to have a genuine belief that the return was filed with the ITO and that it was only after the notice u/s 148 was issued, the assessee came to know that there was no return for 1971-72. Under these circumstances, it was urged before the AAC that the penalty should either be cancelled or the default should be taken only after 30th September, 1974 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de to the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravi Talkies (1982) 137 ITR 176 (Ori). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of G.S. Atwal Co., Asansol vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 171 (Cal). Further reliance is also placed in another decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court (Full Bench) in the cases of CIT vs. Gangaram Chapolia 1975 CTR (Ori) 25 (FB). (1976) 103 ITR 613 (Ori) (FB). It is, therefore, submitted that on the facts of the case and in view of the above decisions rendered by different High Courts, the order of the AAC impugned before us may be reversed and that of the ITO may be restored. 7. On behalf of the assessee, the ld. Counsel resists the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case initiated proceedings u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 as the assessee did not file return u/s 139 (1) or u/s 139 (2). The plea of the assessee before the AAC was that penalty should either be cancelled or the period of default should be counted only after 30th September, 1974, as the notice u/s 148 was issued on 30th August 1974. This main plea of the assessee was found acceptable by the AAC. He also considered that when the assessee had filed return for other years within time, there was no reason to presume that return for the year under appeal was not filed in time. The revenue has strongly relied on the decision in the case of G.S. Atwal Co. It was held in that decided case that the notice issued by the ITO u/s 139 (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
