1987 (6) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1975-76, proceedings under section 271 (1)(a) were also initiated. In response to the notices issued proposing the levy of penalty for the above three years, the respondent-assessee submitted written explanations against levy of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Regarding the assessment year 1975-76, in proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act, the respondent assessee requested for a month's time to submit his explanation. It does not appear that he filed his explanation thereafter. Subsequent to the issue of notices, there was a change in the personnel or incumbent. The successor Income-tax Officer, without issuing any further noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also counsel for the assessee, Mr. Warriyar. The real scope of section 129 of the Income-tax Act read with sections 271 and 274 of the Act arises for consideration in these cases, it was brought to our notice that the decisions in Shop Siddegowda & Family v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 57 (Mys), A. C. Metal Works v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 14 (Raj), Murlidhar Tejpal v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 129 (Pat), Hulekar & Sons v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 130 (Mys), Kanailal Gatani v. CIT[1963] 48 ITR 262 (Cal) and Pradip Lamp Works v. CIT [1977 Tax LR 760 (Cal) supports the view of the Revenue that where one Incometax Officer issues notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied and the assessee submits his explanation in writing, but does not c....