https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8543 The court held that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271 for delayed returns filed under section 139(4), despite the concession for filing returns before assessment under section 139(4). Regarding the obligation of the Commissioner of Income-tax to consider relief under section 271(4A) in a revision petition under section 264, the court found that the Commissioner erred in not exercising discretion under section 271(4A) after the penalty was imposed. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner for reconsideration in line with the law and court's observations, with the rule nisi made absolute and no costs ordered. en-us Thu, 14 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8543 The court held that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271 for delayed returns filed under section 139(4), despite the concession for filing returns before assessment under section 139(4). Regarding the obligation of the Commissioner of Income-tax to consider relief under section 271(4A) in a revision petition under section 264, the court found that the Commissioner erred in not exercising discretion under section 271(4A) after the penalty was imposed. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner for reconsideration in line with the law and court's observations, with the rule nisi made absolute and no costs ordered. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8543