1976 (2) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the delay in filing the return for the asst. yr. 1966-67 is questioned. 2. The assessee in this case is late SriK.M. Parthasarathy Shetty represented by his widow and legal representative Smt. Krishnaveni Ammal. The assessee was doing business for a long number of years. For the asst. yr. 1966-67 the return was due on 30th Sept., 1966. However, the return was actually filed on 6th Jan., 1971 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cause had levied the penalty of Rs. 25,079 being 50 per cent of the tax payable of Rs. 50,157. Since the AAC has also disbelieved the explanation and confirmed the penalty the assessee's legal representative is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee's legal representative contended before us that under similar circumstances the Tribunal had accepted the explanation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o heave losses and right from the earlier asst. yr. 1951-52 there were heavy additions by way of non-genuine hundi credits. According to the learned counsel the assessee was a very aged man and his staff also left him, and he had no help apart from his wife who is an illiterate. The deceased assessee had given such explanations and had pointed out that due to such circumstances he physically and m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X