1981 (11) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he advance tax payable by the assessee amounting to Rs. 9,625 was not paid and, therefore, he issued a notice to the assessee asking him to show cause why penalty should not be levied. There was no reply and, therefore, the ITO proceeded on to levy a penalty amounting to Rs. 1000. 2. On appeal it was argued before the AAC that the show cause notice was served on the assessee on 11th Dec., 1976 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rgued that on 11th Dec., the date on which the notice was served upon the assessee was Saturday which was a holiday in the assessee's officer. Therefore, the notice was actually delivered to the assessee on the 13th, the date fixed for hearing. Though the order of the ITO is actually dated the 24th Dec., the assessee's representative argued that the position had been explained to the ITO sometime .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er advance tax to be pay able so that technically the default by the assessee is there. 4. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), it has been held that penalty may not be leviable for a mere technical or venial breach of law, merely because it is lawful to do so. The Penalty in the present case is in addition to the amount of interest payable otherwise and substantia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X