9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(a) for the asst. yr. 1970-71?" 2. The return ought to have been filed on 16th Aug., 1970 for the asst. yr. 1970-71, whereas it was filed on 30th Dec., 1972. The assessee applied for extension of time for filing the return. The ITO granted time till 15th Nov., 1970. However, the assessee filed the return as pointed out above, only o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has observed that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the return on the due date and as such there was no delay. That reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be accepted to be correct. The law as explained by the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT vs. I.M. Patel & Co. (1992) 105 CTR (SC) 195 : (1992) 196 ITR 297 (SC) : TC 49R.673 is that there is nothing in s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no conscious or deliberate disregard of the statutory obligation on the part of the assessee in submitting the return. That the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the return on the due date being admitted and finding that the assessee had suffered a shock on account of his wife's death, it would be absolutely unjust without further facts to hold that the state of shock could exist or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
