1979 (1) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the return was due on 31st July,, 1974 under s. 139(2). A notice under s. 139(2) was served on 17th Oct., 1974. But the ITO stated that the return of Income was filed only on 4th Sept., 1975. The plea of the assessee was that the books of accounts had been handed over to the Chartered Accountant on 10th July,, 1974 and subsequent delay occurred in his office. The ITO took the view that filing of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lly the AAC came to the conclusion that there was no case for levy of penalty as the delay occurred in the office of the representative of the assessee. He therefore cancelled the penalty. 3. The Department is in appeal. The submission of the learned departmental representative was that the plea of the delay having occurred in the office of the assessee's representative was very vague and could....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntention was to act in conformity with law and not to do anything contrary to the statutory requirement. In a case which arose under the Limitation Act the Supreme Court had occasion to observe as under in the case of Udayan Chinubhai vs. R.C. Bali. "Even otherwise in the entire circumstances of the case disclosing sheer indifference perhaps negligence on the part of the Advocate, Shri Bharatin....