9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1984-85. 2. Brief facts of the case are these. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 20,820 as a registered firm in its return for asst. yr. 1984-85 filed on 26th June, 1984. A sum of Rs. 3,490 had been paid towards advance tax. The assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 1,06,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) directed the issue of penalty notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme would relate back to the date the scheme came into force and not from the date the circular was issued. It was also submitted that the penalty had been initiated under s. 273(2)(c) of the Act whereas the same had been imposed under s. 273(2)(a) of the Act which made the penalty order illegal and invalid. Relying on the Tribunal's decision dt. 17th Jan., 1995, in the case of R.S. Knitting W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as further submitted that the circular issued on a subsequent date would not relate back and would not cover the assessee's case by bringing it under the purview of amnesty scheme. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. 6. After carefully considering the submissions of both the sides, we are of the opinion that the penalty has wrongly be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a lenient view had to be taken in respect of the cases covered by the amnesty scheme. We hold accordingly. 8. Even on merits, no penalty was leviable simply because there was a wide variation between the returned and the assessed income. The assessee could not be said to have anticipated or foreseen the additions to which he agreed during the course of assessment proceedings. One has to see the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
