TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication in Form No. 6 for the asst. yr. 1981-82 was filed on 30th June, 1981 seeking extension of time to file the return upto 30th June, 1981 and the two applications dt. 20th June, 1982 and 30th Sept., 1982 in form No. 6 were filed seeking extension of time to file the returns for the asst. yr. 1982-83 upto 30th Sept., 1982 and 31st Dec., 1983 respectively. No order of the ITO on the said applications was communicated to the assessee and the assessee took it for granted that the extension of time applied for by those three applications was allowed. Thus, the delay in filing the returns for the asst. yr. 1981-82 should have been computed at 12 months in the asst. yr. 1981-82 and six months in the asst. yr. 1982-83. It is further contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken it for granted that no such time was allowed. It is true that penalty proceedings against the assessee was later confirmed by actual show cause notice served upon the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) r/w s. 274. According to him, simply because no section was scored out in the printed matter, in the assessment order, it cannot be said that the ITO had no satisfaction as to the delay in filing the return when it was obvious. Further his contention is that the fact that no tax was payable by the firm does not exonerate the firm the liability for penalty to be proceeded with. According to him, on the basis of the law under s. 271(1)(a) the penalty was computed in accordance with the provisions of s. 271(2) treating the assessee registered fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout reasonable cause. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in absence, of such initiation of penalty proceedings in the course of assessment proceedings, the penalty order for the asst. yr. 1981-82 cannot validly stand. The penalty levied in the asst. yr. 1981-82 is, therefore, cancelled. 6. Coming to the asst. yr. 1982-83 I find that penalty has been rightly levied, though its computation needs revision. Sec. 271(a) reads as under: "When the person liable to penalty is a registered firm or an unregistered firm which has been assessed under cl.(b) of s. 183, then notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of this Act, the penalty imposable under sub-s. (1) shall be the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
