TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond its control and that the penalty levied be cancelled. 2. At the time of hearing of these appeals none was present to represent the assessee. 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental representative who was fair enough to produce before us a copy of the order of the CIT, Pune u/s. 273(a) of the IT Act, 1961. 4. It may be stated that the assessee is a registered firm and there were two part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO was of the view that the penalty proceedings may be lured by limitation and hence he levied penalties of Rs. 1,03,140 and Rs. 58,104. 6. Against the order of the ITO the assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A) who held partially in favour of the assessee in that he held that for asst. yr. 1975-76 upto 31st March, 1977 and for asst. yr. 1976-77 upto 30th June, 1977 could be treated as a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
