1977 (8) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9-70, are conveniently taken together and disposed of by a single order. The issue involved in both is regarding levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act,1961. 2. The assessee, a firm, was required to file its return of income under s. 139(1) of the Act before 30th Sept., 1969, for the asst. yr. 1969-70. The return was, however, filed on 28th April,1971. There was thus a delay of 18 com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f M. Manik Rao vs. CIT (1). The ITO did not accept this explanation either. He held that in view of the same High Court's decision in the case of M/s. T. VenkataKrishnaiah & Co. vs. CIT (2) penalty was clearly exigible under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. He accordingly levied a penalty of Rs. 2,752 calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. In appeal, the AAC cancelled the penalty o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted that the assessee did apply for extension of time and that in any case, since the income assessed was below the taxable limit, there was no obligation on its part to file return. He has also shown his Tapal book which indicated that an application for extension of time was filed on 30th Sept.,1969. 5. On a careful consideration, we are inclined to agree with the AAC in the view he has take....