1981 (11) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1976. The ITO, however, took the view that there was no return filed on 27th November, 1973 and that the return was filed on 9th March, 1976 was the only return available on record and as that return was delayed by about 30 months, the ITO required the assessee to file an explanation for the delay in the submission of the return. The assessee had not responded to this notice. Observing that the assessee had no valid reason to give, the ITO concluded that the assessee had delayed the filing of the return without reasonable cause and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,342 s. 271(1) (a) of the IT Act 1961. 3. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the penalty levied by the ITO. The contention of the assessee before the AAC has been that the return filed on 9th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee that this was the one year in which penal action was taken for the delayed submission of return, he filed before us a statement indicating that neither in the previous year nor in the subsequent year right upto the asst. yr. 1979-80 no delay had been committed and no penal action was taken. He, therefore, pleaded that the contention of the assessee that a return was already filed on 27th November, 1973, may be accepted and the return filed on 9th March, 1975 may be taken as a duplicate return. The ld. Deptl. Rep. however, pointed out that since there was not direct evidence to show that a return was filed on 27th November, 1973, the action taken by the authorities below must be confirmed. 5. Having regard to the circumstantial evidenc....