TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? " , From the statement of facts as stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, Patna, it appears that for the assessment year 1970-71, the due date for filing the return was September 30, 1970, but the assessee filed the return on August 10, 1971, and thus there was a delay in filing the return. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act before completion of the assessment. A notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(a) of the Act was issued on December 10, 1971, which was served on the assessee on December 14, 1971, as mentioned by the Income-tax Officer in the penalty order at page of the paper book. However, the assessment year was not mentioned in the said notice by inadv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n December 14, 1971, and, as in that notice, the assessment year was not mentioned, the Tribunal held that it was a serious defect in the notice and so the notice was defective and so the penalty proceedings carried on thereafter were invalid. The Tribunal, therefore, cancelled the penalty order of the Income-tax Officer. Mr. B. P. Rajgarbia, the learned advocate for the Revenue, has submitted that the Tribunal ignored the second notice which was served on the assessee on March 14, 1974, in which the assessment year was mentioned. He has also submitted that the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer was recorded in the assessment order and the notice could be issued subsequently and that the initiation of the penalty proceeding was not by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if the satisfaction has been recorded in the course of the assessment proceedings, then notice can be issued subsequently and if the first notice was defective, second notice could be issued and in the present case, the second notice had been issued by the Income-tax Officer, although the Income-tax Officer has wrongly mentioned about the service of the first notice. I, therefore, hold that the second notice was validly issued and served on the assessee and so the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty by referring only to the first notice which was a defective notice. In view of my above discussions, I hold that the penalty of Rs. 930 as assessed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(a) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
