9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 139(1) of the Act, the assessee was required to file the return of its total income sou motu on or before 31st July, 1979 whereas it was actually filed on 14th Oct., 1981. There was thus delay of 26 complete months. The ITO, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,965 as the assessee failed to furnish any explanation before him in spi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tea Estate (1981) 21 CTR (Gau) 47 : (1981) 130 ITR 955 (Gau) and CIT vs. Ganesh Das Sreeram (Firm) (1982) 30 CTR (Gau) 302 : (1983) 141 ITR 946 (Gau). The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, contended that penalty was exigible in view of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Hindustan Steel Forgings vs. CIT (1980) 14 CTR (P H) 389 : (1980) 121 ITR 793 (P H) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the issue before us. The ld. counsel for the assessee had also tried to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC). It was urged on behalf of the assessee that in the case the issue involved was whether the Revenue could impose penalty under s. 28(1) (c) of the Indian IT Act, 1922 corresponding to s. 27(1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 on a firm which was dissolve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products 1973 CTR (SC) 177 : (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) has held that where two plausible views are possible, on an issue, the one in favour of the subjects should be adopted. In view of the judgment of the Madras and Gauhati High Courts, which are in favour of the assessee, we hold that no penalty was exigible as tax assessed in the case of the assessee on the basis of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
