1983 (9) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave been charged as the estimate filed was not in compliance with the valid notice u/s 210 and the period of default for submission of return has been taken to be one month. The ITO rejected the contentions of the assessee as being untenable. He proceeded to rectify the assessment order accordingly. 3. The assessee preferred the appeal before the AAC contending that interest u/s 139(8) was wrongly charged as the period was only for one month. The AAC found the same to be in order and deleted the interest levied. In respect of the charging of interest u/s 217(1A), the AAC noted the facts briefly. It was mentioned that the assessee paid Rs. 10,450 u/s 210 whereas the tax was determined at Rs. 29,990. He also noted that the assessee concede....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing in interest under the above two sections, before the appellate authority, while referring to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of ITO, Dibrugarh vs. Mrs. Mahmuda Begum & Ors. being ITA No. 11/Gau/ 1980 dt. 2nd June,1982 in which the ratio of the decision in the case of K.B. Stores vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 505 (Gau), was considered. It is urged that the AAC basically committed an error in entertaining the point raised by the assessee and ultimately allowing the same. It is argued at length that the order passed by the ITO, in fact, required to be sustained. It is submitted that the order of the AAC may be reversed. 5. The assessee's ld. counsel supports the order of the AAC while contending that it is not correct for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ities below alongwith the other papers placed before us for our consideration. From the order of the ITO u/s 154, it is seen that he referred to the petition of the assessee u/s 154 dt. 15th Oct, 1976, the contents of which have been discussed by us above. In that petition the assessee has also referred to the earlier petition dt. 17th Feb, 1975 in which a similar point of contention that the notice u/s 210 was bad in law was raised. But the ITO has chosen to conclude briefly that the contention of the assessee was not tenable, Reasons, of course, were not assigned. Accordingly, the assessee's ld. counsel is right in saying that it is not correct for the AAC to say that this point of contention was not raised earlier before the ITO. It is c....