1986 (4) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was issued and he assessee filed reply wide letter dt.23rd Nov., 1982. In the said reply the assessee, inter alia mentioned that the delay could be at the most, of 14 months. It was also mentioned that the assessee being an old lady of 70 years of age was unaware of the complexities of the tax laws and, therefore, penalty proceedings should be dropped. The ld. ITO considering the explanation submitted as unsatisfactory imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,960 vide order dt.26th March, 1983framed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. 3. Penalty order was subsequently contested by the assessee. It appears to have been argued by Shri P. P. Thukrol, the ld. advocate on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was an old lady and her husband expired on 27th ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mposed by the ld. ITO. The ld. AAC cancelled the penalty with the following observations: 3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant and also gone through the ratio of law decided by the superior law Courts, as referred to above by the ld. counsel and I am of the opinion that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause form filing the return of income in time. In the circumstances of the case, I hold that the imposition of penalty was unwarranted and the same is accordingly cancelled. 4. The Revenue's present appeal is against the cancellation of penalty. The ground taken is to the following effect: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC is not jus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1979. The requirement of the notice must have been that the return could be filed within 35 days on receipt thereof. It appears as if the said notice was altogether ignored by the assessee. The return in fact was filed only on10th July, 1980. The ld. ITO against this background imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,960 taking the delay of 35 complete months. The ld. AAC for the reasons mentioned hereinabove concelled the penalty orders. 8. In the given circumstances it is possible to appreciate that upto the stage of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1976-77 the assessee could be considered to have no idea about filing of her return of income-tax. But once notice under s. 148 was issued on28th March, 1979there could be no reason for not com....