1979 (12) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umacious conduct ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271 (1)(a) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that no penalty is exigible is sound in law ? The respondent-assessee, an individual, has filed his return of income for the assessment year 1964-65, for the relevant accounting year ending with March 31, 1964, on March 27, 1968, instead of filing the same on or before September 30, 1964. The ITO holding that the assessee failed to file the return within the prescribed time-limit without reasonable cause has imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,940 under s. 271 (1)(a) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agraph 5 of its order has stated that the Department has not challenged the correctness of the facts that are stated to have contributed to the delay as explained by the assessee and, therefore, according to the counsel for the assessee, it should be held that the Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the assessee. Sri P. Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the Tribunal has not accepted the explanation of the assessee for the delay in filing the return and if it has so accepted, there was no necessity to consider the legal aspect and hold that the Revenue has not established that the assessee has failed to furnish the return within time without reasonable cause in the later portion of the same paragraph. Accordin....