1977 (7) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....16,418 for delay of 11 months under s 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957. The assessee went in appeal to the AAC. He also concurred with the ITO. The penalty was, therefore, confirmed in appeal. The assessee, thereafter, approached the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the assessee was not prevented by any reasonable cause in filing the return. Hence the order of the AAC was confirmed by the Tribunal. 2. The assessee has moved a Misc. Application stating that the WTO has himself admitted that in the original return, the assessee claimed the status as that of "Individual" but in the revised return, he had claimed the status of 'HUF'. The submission of the assessee is that the observation of the WTO itself fully ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....drawn our attention to the fourth paragraph of the assessment order, dt. 27th June, 1973 passed by the WTO. In this order the WTO observed as follows: "As regards the status in the original return, the assessee has claimed the status as 'Individual' but in the revised return has claimed the status as 'HUF". The contention of the assessee is that there was no delay in submission of the return and that he had filed original return before the expiry of the due date. It is urged by the assessee that his contention in fully supported by the aforesaid observation by the WTO, who himself admits that in the original return status of individual had been claimed by the assessee. The assessee says that the fact of filing of two returns has been ....