1981 (3) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Ranchi Range, Ranchi, by which he upheld the penalty order of the ITO imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,313 against the assessee under s. 271 (1) (a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), relating to the asst. yr. 1976-77. 2. The assessee firm was required to file return under s. 139(1) of the said Act on or before 31st July, 1976 but the return was filed on 5th August, 197....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 5th Aug., 1977 for a period of 9 months and so he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,313 against the assessee under s. 271 (1) (a) of the said Act which was confirmed by the AAC. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AAC the assessee has filed the present appeal on the ground that the delay was as the accounts of the firm could not be made ready due to difference in trial balance. The assessee has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rm is treated as URF then tax payable will be much more and the assessee was not entitled to a refund. 6. Under such circumstances we have only to see whether there was reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the return. When the ITO held that there was reasonable cause till 31st Oct., 1976 as the accounts of the firm were not ready due to difference in trial balance then some ground persist....