9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainable under the provisions of s. 249(4) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The assessee filed the appeal before the AAC on 13th April, 1976. Apparently, the admitted tax was not paid by that date. The assessee actually paid the admitted tax of Rs. 53 on 11th May, 1977. The AAC heard the assessee on 11th May, 1977 and 16th May, 1977 and passed the appellate order on 30th May, 1977. The AAC gave an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was contended that it would be a grant hardship if the appeal was not admitted. The AAC did not find force in the above contentions. He was of the view that if ignorance of the new provision was allowed to be sufficient cause for not observing the same, then every body would violate the new provision. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the appeal in limine. 3. Shri S.K. Roy, the learned re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax due on the income returned by it by the time the appeal was filed. That section has a proviso which says that, on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the AAC may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of this sub-section. We find that the above provision was quite new and so, the explanation of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnorance of the provision is taken to be a good cause, then every body will violate the same because provision cannot remain new for long and the same assessee cannot violate twice and still plead ignorance on the latter occasion. We have considered the contention raised by the learned Representative for the Department before us. We find that the AAC has asked the assessee to show cause as to why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
