1979 (6) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yr. 1965-66 the assessee was required to file a return of income under s. 139(1) on or before 30th Sept., 1965. However, the ITO served a notice under s. 139(2) on 7th May, 1965 requiring the filing of the return on or before 6th June, 1965. The return was actually filed only on 11th Oct., 1965 and the assessee pleaded that the return could not be submitted due to non-compilation of final accoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. In the further appeal before us, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that there was no justification for the imposition of penalty when the explanation of the assessee had not been found to be un-acceptable. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. 5. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the assessee is ent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he return. The provisions of sub-s. (2) do not have any non-obstante clause and hence prima facie it does not over-ride the provisions of s.139(1). Where, therefore, the time for filing the return under s.139(1) was available to the assessee until 30th Sept., 1965, though the ITO may require the filing of the return before that date by issuing notice under s. 139(2), he would be in no position to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be imposed under s. 271(1)(A) for failure to file the return in response to a notice under s. 139(2) for a default occurring before the expiry of the time allowed under 139(1) unless there was some special reason why the assessee was not entitled to the time allowed under s. 139(1) of the act. 6. Even on the merits, we find that the imposition of penalty is not justified on the facts of the cas....