TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (12) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessment order for the year 1952-53 was passed on 30th November, 1954, while the assessment order for the year 1953-54 was passed on 23rd March, 1955. Aggrieved, the assessee went up in appeal. Meanwhile, the Income-tax Officer drew up penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case appears to have been fixed for 9th February, 1956, on which date the assessee addressed a letter to the Income-tax Officer requesting postponement of the hearing till the disposal of the appeals pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner decided the appeal relating to the assessment year 1952-53, on 4th September, 1956, and the appeal in respect of the assessment year 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the following question of law for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relating to assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54, respectively ? " We may here notice that the Income-tax Officer in his order imposing penalty had explained the delay. In one order he has said that the file was under transfer from one Income-tax Officer to the other and the pendency of penalty proceedings casually escaped notice. The assessee contributed to the delay by the non-submission of the reply to the two opportunities given to him. In the other order dated 26th M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. At the assessee's instance, the time was extended to March 25, 1968. " In appeal these findings were more or less confirmed. The Commissioner held that the records clearly showed that on various dates due to reasons beyond the control of the Income-tax Officer, the delay happened and also due to the appellant's non-submission of the replies to the Income-tax Officer's notices. It was further seen from the record that the appellant was indulging in dilatory tactics with a view to delay the functioning of the recovery proceedings in the due course of law. The Income-tax Officer appears to have had no option but to complete the penalty proceedings and in his opinion there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the department in taking th....