1984 (7) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty of Rs. 5,965 imposed by the ITO under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. 2. Under s. 139(1) of the Act, the assessee was required to file the return of its total income sou motu on or before 31st July, 1979 whereas it was actually filed on 14th Oct., 1981. There was thus delay of 26 complete months. The ITO, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act and imposed a pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed) 58 : (1978) 113 ITR 99 (Med) and Gauhati High Court reported as CIT vs. Maskara Tea Estate (1981) 21 CTR (Gau) 47 : (1981) 130 ITR 955 (Gau) and CIT vs. Ganesh Das Sreeram (Firm) (1982) 30 CTR (Gau) 302 : (1983) 141 ITR 946 (Gau). The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, contended that penalty was exigible in view of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e involved was about the constitutional validity of s. 271 (2) of the Act and not in regard to the issue before us. The ld. counsel for the assessee had also tried to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC). It was urged on behalf of the assessee that in the case the issue involved was whether the Revenue could impose penalty under s. 28(1) (c) of the Indian IT Act,....