TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (10) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the other is u/s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. 2. The assessee is an individual. For the asst. yr. 1976-77, instead of filing the return on due date, which was 31st July 1976, the return was filed only on 23rd February 1978. For the delay in filing the return in time, the ITO levied a penalty u/s. 271 (1) (a). On appeal, it was explained to the AAC that the assessee had asked for extention of time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed on appeal. 4. Before us, the assessee arguing his own case made two submissions: (i) for the delay in not filing the return, and (ii) for the omission to file a proper estimate he had reasonable cause. After hearing him on this point, we are in agreement with the AAC that the assessee did not have reasonable cause. However, the assessee had also taken a technical plea. His case was that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hop Siddegowda & Family vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 57 (Mys) had held that the levy of penalty under these circumstances would be valid. No doubt, the authorities cited by him support the department. The statutory provision is, however, very clear. Sec. 129 states that whenever an Income-tax authority ceased to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another, the successor may continue the proceedings....