TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (8) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the year ended 31st March, 1973. The due date for income-tax return was 31st July, 1973. But it was furnished only on 20th Sept., 1974. So penalty proceedings for the default was initiated. The assessee filed some explanation. That was rejected. The ITO then levied a penalty of Rs. 7,695 for default commencing from 31st July, 1973 to 20th Sept., 1974. 2. The AAC found that by two applications e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s till then were taken away. So the explanation of the assessee was that all the account books were in the possession of the Department and that, therefore, the assessee was not able to prepare the statements necessary for the return. The books for a portion of the accounting year had, therefore, been taken into custody by the Department. The return furnished in this year is not on estimate basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted out that the assessee had been negligent and is without any bona fides and he was making the use of the search, on 19th May, 1972 as a cover, shield or smoke screen for this culpable negligence in not furnishing the return. 5. Before we discuss the matter further we deal with a statement of the Deptl. Rep. which superficiously must appear as a forceful one. The Deptl. Rep. pointed out that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also collected with him all materials for asst. yr. 1973-74. The assessee would have examined only that such of accounts necessary for asst. yr. 1972-73. In the case like this assessee could have kept quiet and in penalty proceedings pleaded that the accounts were with the Department and that is why the delay in furnishing the return. But the assessee here has chosen to file applications for exten....