TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 217, which had been charged without passing any speaking order and without exercising the discretion vested in the ITO u/rr 40 and 117A of the IT Rules, 1962 and by taking the status of the assessee as an URF for purposes of s. 139(8). 2. The facts are that for the asst. yr. 1977-78 the return of income which was due to be filed on 30th June, 1977., was filed on 6th Oct., 1979., The tax paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd u/s 215 would be allowed by the ITO. 4. The assessee being still aggrieved has come up in appeal before us. Shri K.R. Manjani, the ld. counsel for the assessee, firstly submitted that the ground of appeal pertaining to the interest u/s 217 (should be s. 215) was not pressed and that the only point pressed was in regard to the charge u/s 139(8). In this connection, he pointed out that the IAC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch as also the dates of applications for extension of time, etc. 5. On the other hand Shri M.M. Bharati, the ld. departmental representative, placed reliance on the orders of the IT Authorities. He also pointed out that interest had to be charged u/s 139(8) if the return is furnished after the specified date. He also pointed out that there was no request of the assessee for waiver of interest an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
