1976 (11) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 10th Jan., 1974. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings for non-compliance with the notice under s. 139(2). The assessee had explained that the audit of the accounts was not completed and that application for extension of time had also been filed. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee's explanation on the ground that the assessee's obligation does not cease by merely handing over the books of accounts to his auditors. He further observed that grant by the extended time granted upto 31st Dec., 1973 the return was not filed. He, therefore, imposed the penalty as aforesaid. 2. On appeal the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner found that the assessee who is a partner in the firm of M/s. AR.AP. Viswanatha Nadar & Sons and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore the application said to have been filed seeking extension of time was invalid. He also submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in referring to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Venkateswara Power Rolling Mills and Another vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, since the facts in that case were different from the facts in the instant case. 4. On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The learned representative for the assessee also referred us to the order of the Appellate Tribunal passed cancelling of penalty levied under s. 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the same assessment year in the Departmental appeal against the consolid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... x Officer meant that the assessee did apply for extension of time till 31st December, 1973 and that the same was granted. Apart from the explanation offered by the assessee which has not been found to be incorrect or false by the department, no material is on record to show that the assessee committed wilful default. The law relating to levy of penalties for non-compliance with the statutory obligations is now well-settled by the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa. The above dictum was followed recently by the Madras High Court in the case of V.L. Dutt vs. Commissioner of Income-tax(3). As per the above rulings it is clear that there per the above rulings it is clear that there should be a co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X