1983 (10) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst the levy of penalty u/s. 273(c) 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 asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty u/s 273(C). This was also confirmed 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 take....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....62 (Cal) and the Mysore High Court in Shop 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....