1980 (8) 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

....1687, is against the order of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) while all other appeals are against order of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). 2. It is unnecessary to go in length to the facts of the case because the penalty has been imposed for the omission to declare the income from 3 properties, namely, No. 20, Sunnambukaran Street, Ambur, Virinjipuram Lalu Saheb Street, Ambur and Shot Jawali Bazaar and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f her order and he would support the same. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view that so far as the source for the investment in the properties is concerned, it is obvious that the assessee had furnished this information voluntarily as is evident from the very order of penalty of the ITO, where, in para 2 of his order; he had stated that the mere admission of the sourc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of s. 271(1)(c), as we are satisfied that the omission is purely inadvertent rather than deliberate. No penalty is, therefore, warranted. 5. In the appeal for the asst. yr. 1971-72, the assessee objects to the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) for not filing the return of income in time. The return in this case was due on 30th Sept., 1971 but it was filed only on 31st Aug., 1972. In response....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 728. On appeal, the AAC also confirmed the levy of penalty for the reason that the assessee was unable to file any evidence for the ill-health which was so grave so as to prevent him from filing the return of income in time. 6. Before us, the assessee's representative relied on the grounds of appeal and contended that the same reasonable cause as has been accepted by the Department for th....