TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (4) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tified in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds instead of considering the same on merit. 2. The assessee had filed appeals for both the years under appeal before the AAC on 1st Jan., 1976 on receipt of demand notice on 3rd Dec., 1975. While filing the appeals the assessee had not paid tax due as per the income returned by him for both the years but he paid the same on 12th Jan., 1976. At....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee was wrong in claiming that the undisputed tax was paid by him within the time allowed for filing the appeals before him. He also came to hold that the assessee was represented before the ITO through his authorised advocate and, therefore, his plea for ignorance law was not acceptable. He, therefore, dismissed the appeals for both the years. 3. The assessee has come up in further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als on technical ground should have decided the same on merit. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the AAC contended that the assessee should have paid tax as per income returned by him within one month from the date of filing of the returns but he did not do so. He contended that when law provided certain obligation, the assessee was under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw is of no excuse, but in consideration of the fact of frequent amendments in the IT Act almost every year sometimes more than once in a year, it can be legitimately presumed that it is not possible for every person to be conversant with the provisions of new law immediately after its amendment. In this case, the amendment came into force w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1975 and the assessee filed the appeals o....