1984 (8) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s right in sustaining the penalty for the period of default falling under section 139(1) ? The relevant facts of the case can be culled out from the statement of the case. The assessee is a firm and the assessment year involved is 1966-67. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,110 under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act due to the default of delayed submission of return, rejecting the explanation of the assessee that a return was sent by post on June 23, 1966, since he found that the said return was not available in his record, The order of the ITO has been annexed and marked as annexure 'A' forming part of the statement of the case. The assessee went in appeal before the AAC and it was submitted that no notice under s. 274 of the Act was served o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal also considered the fact that the assessee had not even informed the ITO about sending of any return on June 23, 1966, on receipt of notice under s. 139(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the assessee was a defaulter for delayed submission of the return without any cause and was liable to penalty. As regards the period of default, the Tribunal held that the assessee may be saddled with penalty for his default in terms of s. 139(1) of the Act, although he had furnished the return within the time and manner as required by notice under s. 139(2). In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the case of CIT v. Indra and Co. [1971] 79 ITR 702 (Raj). The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the penalties were correctly imposed and the Tribunal came to a finding that the assessee may be inflicted with penalty for his default in not furnishing the return within the time prescribed under s. 139(1) of the Act, although he had furnished the same within the time and in the manner required by the notice under s. 139(2) of the Act. The order of the ITO shows that it is a clear case of default of the notice under s. 139(2) of the Act and so for non-compliance of the notice, he held that it was a fit case for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. It is evident that for non-compliance of the notice under s. 139(2), the ITO imposed penalty under s. 139(1) of the Act. Thus, the intention of the ITO appears from his conduc....