https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56889 Failure to furnish the prescribed particulars of a construction contract within the statutory time constituted a default under section 285A(1) because the explanation for the omission was found unsatisfactory. However, the first-time nature of the lapse, the absence of any subsequent similar default, and the possibility of a bona fide belief that no further intimation was required were treated as mitigating factors on penalty. The default was therefore upheld, but the fine under section 285A(2) was reduced, with relief granted only on the question of quantum. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:41:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56889 Failure to furnish the prescribed particulars of a construction contract within the statutory time constituted a default under section 285A(1) because the explanation for the omission was found unsatisfactory. However, the first-time nature of the lapse, the absence of any subsequent similar default, and the possibility of a bona fide belief that no further intimation was required were treated as mitigating factors on penalty. The default was therefore upheld, but the fine under section 285A(2) was reduced, with relief granted only on the question of quantum. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56889