1978 (5) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing an income of Rs. 50,775. Thus there was a delay of 15 months. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under s. 271(1)(a) of the said Act. It was pleaded before the ITO that the delay for submission of the return was due to ailment of Shri S.S. Bagaria and because of the Accountant left service. The assessee could not prove the contention before the ITO. The ITO held that the assessee firm did not file any petition for extension of time. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,300 against the assessee under s. 271(1)(a) of the said Act. 3. The assessee appealed before the AAC. Before the AAC it was submitted that the assessee was never allowed any opportunity to furnish the required evidence because there was no de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n be imposed for the default under s. 139(1) of the said Act. It was, therefore, submitted before the AAC that if the delay cannot be condoned then penalty can be imposed from the middle of Feb., 1974, till 26th Dec., 1974 i.e. for 9 months if the broken period of December is ignored. 6. The AAC considered the argument advanced by Shri S.S. Bagaria, partner of the firm, as also by the counsel and found them to be apparently convincing. The AAC calculated the period of default of 10 months after the due date of furnishing of the return under s. 139(2) of the said Act i.e. middle of Feb., 1974 till 26th Dec., 1974. As regards the merits, the AAC has pointed out that there was nothing to disbelieve the assessee's contention that Shri Bagaria'....