1985 (2) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er. 2. The assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1972-73, under the provision of law, the return was due on or before 31-7-1972. It was filed on 14-9-1972. On the basis of this return, the ITO proceeded with the process of assessment in accordance with law and finalised the assessment on 18-3-1974 under section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 58,000. Since the return, filed on 14-9-1972, was late by a complete month, the ITO levied penalty of Rs. 455 under section 271(1)(a) on 1-8-1974, which was confirmed in appeal by the AAC by his order dated 17-2-1975 and the matter rested there. The assessee felt aggrieved with the assessment order so made by the ITO and took the matter in appeal up to the Tribunal. The T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate of return, i.e., 31-7-1972. In the impugned penalty order, however, he has, for the reasons best known to him, not recorded the number of complete months, for which the default has been considered, as was enjoined upon him by law. However, the penalty of Rs. 24,258 was levied upon the assessee. This was taken up in appeal before the AAC and the AAC, also having reiterated the facts, stated by the ITO, confirmed the penalty. 4. After careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we are surprised at the manner in which the authorities below proceeded to penalise the assessee, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, which indicate that the default, if any, was of contributory negligence by both the sides. Apparentl....