9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for the delayed furnishing of the return and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,769. The penalty order makes no mention of any explanation furnished by the assessee in response to the show cause notice issued to him. The said order states that the assessee's representative had merely requested for a lenient view being taken in the penalty proceedings. 3. The assessee went in appeal to the AAC and contended that the notice dt. 30th March, 1970 and 1st Jan., 1972 issued in connection with the penalty proceedings were bad in law as the designation of the signatory thereto described as the officer concerned as ITO instead of as WTO. The said objection appealed to the AAC and he set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The notice, as contemplated under s. 18(2) was, however, in the instant case issued on 1st Jan., 1972 and served on the assessee on 6th Jan., 1972. The said notice was issued for 10th Jan., 1972. It clearly indicated that the penalty proceedings concerned were under s. 18(1)(a), WT Act. 6. Next the assessee argued that as the notice for 10th Feb., 1972 was served on the assessee only on 6th Jan., 1972, the notice was too short and adequate opportunity should not, therefore, be held to have been afforded to the assessee. We again see no force in this objection, as the fact remains that the assessee did furnish a written explanation dt. 8th Jan., 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt suggested that the case may be remitted to the AAC for finding as to the existence of reasonable cause for the delay in question. Though for determining the question as to exigibility of penalty under s. 18(1)(i) it is absolutely necessary to determine the question whether the delay in question was or was not caused by a reasonable cause, the question as to the advisability of remitting the case to the AAC has to be considered in the light of the facts obtaining in the instant case. Firstly, the offence in question is stated to have been committed on 30th June, 1965, when the last date due for furnishing the return expired. That even took place more than ten years ago. Secondly, if the law to be applied to the penalty proceedings is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
