1986 (7) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....convenience. 2. For the asst. yr. 1977-78 the return was filed on 5th July, 1978 though due on 30th June, 1977. There was, according to the ITO, a delay of 12 months in the filing of return. He issued notice under s. 274 read with s. 27f asking the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied for late submission of return. There was no compliance to this notice by the assessee. The ITO, therefore, proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 4,330. 3. The AAC found that the assessee had sought extension of time which was not considered by the ITO at all. In fact for the asst. yr. 1977-78, five such applications were filed and the return was filed before the date of final extension. The AAC felt that the penalty was wrongly levied and, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urn of income was filed on 25th July, 1978 for the asst. yr. 1977-78 and even applications were filed in the same form seeking similar extension from time to time till return of income was filed on 30th Jan., 1980 of the asst. yr. 1978-79. The first application in Form No. 6 for the asst. yr. 1977-78 was filed on 24th June, 1977 which was well before the time when the return was due and in that sense the return was intended to be filed on 24th June, 1977 which was well before the time when the return was due and in that sense the assessment return was intended to be filed under s. 139(1) of the IT Act. None of these applications were replied to by the ITO. On the other hand, none of the applications wee rejected by the department. It should....