2004 (3) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....am. So, for all practical purposes, Executive Engineer PH Division, Berhampur, has to be treated as assessee. The moot question proposed to be decided by us in this appeal relates to the point whether leniency can be shown to Executive Engineer, PH Division, for non-furnishing of annual return in Form No. 26C by due dates, i.e., 30th June, 1997 and 30th Aug., 1999, for the respective assessment years under consideration. However, the same were filed on 2nd Aug., 1999, after notices were issued by the Department. The AO imposed penalties for the same as per law under s. 272A(2)(c) of the IT Act. 3. The assessee went in first appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalties imposed by the AO. He has elaborately discussed the matter in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the appellant was liable to penalty, which having been levied at only the minimum rate, there is no reason for me to interfere." Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. While defending his client, the learned senior counsel, Mr. S.N. Rotho, gave a very vivid picture of the provision of the law relating to s. 2(31) of IT Act r/w s. 272A(2)(c). He also relied on a number of case laws which include the one of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court relating to s. 482, Cr. PC in the case of Bata alias Batakrushna Behra & Ors. vs. Anama Behra 1990 Crl. LJ 110. He also cited the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), decided by the Hon'ble apex Court an....