1980 (10) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... branches. The following chart would indicate the delays in filing the annual returns in respect of the various branches and the penalty sustained by the ld. CIT in respect of the various branches: Assessment year 1976-77 . . Annual return due on Return filed on Delay in filing annual return Penalty confirmed @ Rs. 2 per day . . . . . Rs. 1. Kanpur 15-6-1976 24-12-1977 556 days 1,112 2. Pondichery 15-6-1976 24-12-1977 526 days 1,052 3. Naini 15-6-1976 28-11-1977 499 days 998 4. Udaipur 15-6-1976 7-11-1977 519 days 1,038 5. Bombay 15-6-1976 22-12-1977 554 days 1,108 6. Rae Bareilly 15-6-1976 22-10-1977 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., our attention was invited by the ld. counsel for the assessee towards ss. 194A, s. 205, s. 272A, s. 285 and r. 116 of the IT Rules. 4. He also pleaded that inasmuch as the default was merely technical and venial, penalty ought not to be sustained by us in accordance with the principles laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). 5. On behalf of the Department, the orders of the ld. CIT were very stoutly supported and it was urged that there was no reasonable cause whatsoever for filing the annual returns late and being busy in audit was no excuse at all for that was a normal event in the life of a company and it could not, therefore, be an abnormal factor, which delayed the....