9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1964-65 levied by the WTO. 2. In this case the WTO completed the assessment under s. 17 of the WT Act, and issued a notice under s. 18(2) thereafter to show cause why penalty need not be levied for delay in submission of the return. In this notice issued under s. 18(2) he did not mention the section of WT Act, specifically for which he wanted the assessee to explain the delay. The assessee by le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee's letter dt. 29th July, 1972 and levied penalty without clarifying the position to the assessee. He, therefore, cancelled the penalty, placing reliance upon the Kerala High Court decision reported at 97 ITR 228 cited before him from the side of the assessee. The revenue has, therefore, come up in appeal before us. 4. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the assessee should have s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . When the assessee had written a letter on 29th July, 1972 explaining to the WTO that there was no delay for the notice under s. 17 the WTO should have made it clear to the assessee that he was proceeding with reference to the liability of the assessee under s. 14(1) but this was not done by him. It was further submitted that the assessee bona fide believed that he was not liable to file the retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee expressing the view taken by the assessee that the penalty proceedings started by him were in course of reassessment proceedings and, therefore, related to the notice under s. 17, yet the WTO did not clarify to the assessee that he was proceeding for default of the assessee with reference to s. 14(1) of the WT Act. Since the assessee was not made aware of what the WTO wanted him to explai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
