https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8288 Penalty under section 271(1)(a) was unsustainable because the return and revised returns on record had been filed by the firm through a partner, not by the Hindu undivided family assessed as the assessee; the order wrongly treated another entity's return as the assessee's delayed return, so the penalty for late filing was set aside. Penalty under section 273 was sustainable because, on the facts found, the assessees for the relevant period had filed no return before or after the 1961 Act came into force, and the statutory obligation to file an advance tax estimate therefore remained; the reference to section 18A(2) of the 1922 Act was only a typographical error and caused no prejudice. en-us Fri, 03 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8288 Penalty under section 271(1)(a) was unsustainable because the return and revised returns on record had been filed by the firm through a partner, not by the Hindu undivided family assessed as the assessee; the order wrongly treated another entity's return as the assessee's delayed return, so the penalty for late filing was set aside. Penalty under section 273 was sustainable because, on the facts found, the assessees for the relevant period had filed no return before or after the 1961 Act came into force, and the statutory obligation to file an advance tax estimate therefore remained; the reference to section 18A(2) of the 1922 Act was only a typographical error and caused no prejudice. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8288