1984 (3) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....statement of case and has referred the following questions of law for our opinion i: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITO had jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(a), I.T. Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of the first return filed under section 139(4), I.T. Act, 1961, when the assessment was made with reference to the second return subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....963, showing a total income of Rs. 10,294. On September 7, 1967, the assessee filed a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 18,429. Daring the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO issued notice to the petitioner requiring to show cause why penalty under s. 271(1)(a) should not be imposed for the delay in filing the return. After hearing the assessee, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any person has without any reasonable cause failed to furnish the total income which he was required to furnish under sub-s. (1) of s. 139. In the present case, the assessee was the person who could be said to have been required to file the return under s. 139(1) because she did in fact furnish the return which was taken as the basis of the assessment. She was hence the assessee who was undoubtedl....