2006 (4) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stification for penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. Original assessment in the case of the assessee was made on March 13, 1978. On receipt of information that income in the form of investment in construction of building and installation of plant and machinery had escaped assessment, a notice was issued to the assessee on February 14, 1980. The assessee di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fter, penalty was imposed under section 271 (1) (a) of the Act. The said order was affirmed in appeal. The Tribunal also affirmed the penalty, noticing that several opportunities had been given to the assessee and it had been found that the assessee had deliberately not disclosed the correct income. The return itself was filed 56 months after the notice under section 148 of the Act, which justifie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1984, was a duplicate return. Thus, the factum of delay in filing the return of income late by 56 months is accepted. But there is absolutely no explanation either before the authorities below or even before this Bench as to why the assessee could not file the return of income in time. No reasons for delay have at all been given by the assessee. Not a word has been said about the merits of the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n by learned counsel for the appellant in CIT v. Munish Iron Store [2003] 263 ITR 484 (P&H) ; CIT v. Parmanand M. Patel [2005] 278 ITR 3 (Guj); CIT v. Auto Lamps Ltd. [2005] 278 ITR 32 (Delhi) ; CIT v. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd. [2005] 277 ITR 337 (Delhi) and CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi), have no application in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, in the ....