1981 (2) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y 1980 of the ld. AAC, for the asst. yr. 1975-76, inter alia, on the following grounds: "1. That in reply of notice, the appellant moved an application for extension of time for two months as a theft had taken place in the premises of the appellant. The application was rejected without any ground and was filed on record by ITO. 2. That the appellant has also mentioned in the same application....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....compliance of the notice by the assessee. The ITO after taking consideration the facts available on record concluded that the default cognisable under the said section of the said Act had been committed by the assessee, and therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000. 3. The said penalty order dt. 5th December 1978 of the ITO was challenged by the assessee. It was, inter alia, contended before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and that the ld. AAC only mechanically confirmed the wrong penalty order of the ITO. He invited our attention to a copy of the petition dt. 24th April, 1978 addressed to the ITO, Faizabad. The said petition was found to be on record by the authorities below. From the contents of the said petition it is noticed that the outstanding tax demand was not and cannot be to the extent of Rs. 18,899. Suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court, and reported in (1974) 93 ITR 140 (Ori) wherein their Lordships held: "That the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee under s. 221(1) of the IT Act, 1961, was not validly imposed. When a notice of demand is issued under s. 156 of the Act, credit has to be given in terms of s. 219 and demand is required to be raised only in respect of the excess amount of tax over and ....