1985 (4) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it followed that no tax was leviable. Therefore, there was no delay in the filing of the return. It was also contended that the delay was due to non-receipt of account statement form Madras, in the absence of which the challani a/c cold not be finalised. The ITO was of the opinion that for the purpose of computing the penalty under s. 271 (1) (a) of he IT Act, according to s. 271 (2) where a person liable to penalty is a registered firm, the penalty imposable shall be the same as would be imposable on that firm if that firm were an unregistered firm. Therefore, the assessee's plea that more TDS or advance tax had been paid than the amount of assessed tax, was not maintainable. Similarly, he held that if the assessee had not received the Cha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 374 and 375/83 decided on 26th June, 1984. For the Department, reliance was placed upon CIT vs. R. Ochhavlal & Co. (1976) 105 ITR 518 (Guj) and CIT vs. Priya Gopal Bishoyee (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 242 : (1981) 127 ITR 778 (Cal). The latest decision cited was CIT vs. Janata Trading Co. (1983) 37 CTR (Bom) 203 : (1984) 150 ITR 676 (Bom). 4. After carefully considering all the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that although the balance of authority appears to be in favour of the Department, because the Gujarat, Calcutta and Bombay High Courts have decided in favour of the Department, we should not now take a different view because the Jaipur Bench has already taken a view in favour of the assessee. Apart from thi....