9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he IT Act, 1961. 2. Due date for filing of the return in this case was 31st July, 1981 but it was filed on 31st March, 1984. Since there was a delay of 32 months, the Assessing Officer levied penalty for delay in filing of the return. 3. The first appellate authority deleted the penalty mainly on the ground that no demand of tax was created at assessment and, therefore, since the tax paid or d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of tax at source, should not be accepted. If the assessee had any genuine difficulty, he could have sought extension of time. It has also been pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative that the certificate regarding Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was obtained by the assessee in the month of July, 1982, except one certificate. Therefore, the learned Departmental Representative has chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(a)(i), he was not responsible to pay penalty. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel on another decision of the same High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganesh Das Sreeram (1982) 30 CTR (Gau) 302 : (1983) 141 ITR 946 (Gau). It has been held in that case that the idea behind the imposition of penalty is to take care of the revenue, apart from penalising the wrongdoer. Now, if a person had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d & Co. (1989) 80 CTR (P&H) 3 : (1989) 179 ITR 419 (P&H). In these two cases, it has been held that no penalty was leviable under s. 271(1)(a) for a delay in filing the return where the tax deducted at source or paid in advance is equal to or exceeds the assessed tax payable by a registered firm. 6. Looking to the entire facts of the case and the case laws, we find that the first appellate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
