TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept., 1975. Thus, there was two months delay. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings for the delay in filing the return. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed a written reply dt. 10th Oct., 1979. It was pointed out that since the assessment completed under s. 143(1) was objected to by the assessee and for that purpose Form No. 6A was filed on 19th Dec., 1977, the penalty proceedings should be dropped. The ITO rejected this explanation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 491. 3. On appeal before the AAC, the assessee pleaded that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return because the assessee being the only male member of the family could not prepare final accounts for the relevant period. The AAC rejected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, there appears to be material to suggest that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. Firstly, the accounts were not finalised. Secondly, the assessee had objected to the assessment made under s. 143 (1) and filed Form No. 6A. In such a case, the ITO is required to proceed with the assessment by issuing a notice if he does not accept the objection. The ITO did not issue any notice, nor did he act in accordance with ss. 143(2) and 143(3), as required by law. The matter was stated to be still pending. In such circumstances also, it would not be a fit case for levy of penalty. Hence, I cancel the impugned penalty of Rs. 491. 5. In the appeal against the levy of penalty under s. 273(c), the facts are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular footing, viz., under s.273(b) for failure to furnish a statement of the advance tax payable under s. 209A(1)(a), the penalty could not be levied for the failure to file an estimate of advance-tax under s. 212(3A). In this connection, it has been held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT, Gujarat-I vs. Lakhdhir Lalji, (1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj) that where the penalty proceedings had been commenced against the assessee on a particular footing, viz., concealment of particulars of income, but the final conclusion for levying the penalty was based on a different footing altogether, viz., on the footing of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, it could not be said that the assessee had been given a reasonable opportunity of being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
