1976 (2) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y under s. 271(1)(a) and under s. 27(1)(c) for the asst. yr. 1969-70. 2. The ITO imposed penalty under s. 271(1)(a) as he found that the return was filed late. The return was due on 30th Sept., 1969 and it was filed on 2nd Feb., 1971. The AAC confirmed the penalty and enhanced this quantum as, according to him, there was some mistake in the calculation of penalty. Before the AAC, the plea was t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....difference between the assessed and returned income. He further bound that the assessee had not adjusted personal expenses to the extent of Rs. 3,810 and claim of interest to the extent of Rs. 1,947. The penalty of Rs. 5,757 was imposed. 4. The AAC upheld the penalty and rejected the plea of the assessee that proper opportunities had not been given to the assessee. In the case of this penalty a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appeal was decided. It was submitted that it was the duty of the ITO to ascertain the explanation of the assessee before imposing the penalty. It was submitted that this was all the more necessary when the ITO had changed. On facts, it was submitted that the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was not justified as there was no concealment detected by the ITO. The non-adjustment of personal expenses was n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as also submitted that the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was imposable as it was the duty of the assessee to have added personal expenses and the claim of interest. 7. Having heard the parties, we are of the view that the penalty cannot be sustained. The ITO has passed cryptic orders while imposing the penalties. We have seen from records that the assessee did not write to the ITO when the show ca....