1993 (7) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 22,097 further reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is leviable under section 271(1)(a) of the assessee The assessee was required to file his return of income latest by July 31, 1972, in respect of the assessment year 1972-75 ; but in fact filed the same as late as July 16, 1974. There was, thus, a dela .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... return was due. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,097. The assessee then appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while agreeing with the findings of the Income-tax Officer on the flimsiness of the reason for the delay tendered by the assessee, further observed that although the assessee had filed an application for exte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essment year (which explanation had not been accepted) penalty had been imposed and that penalty had been confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dated September 27, 1978, in Income-tax Appeal No. 20/(Ahd) of 1977-78. The Tribunal, in this context, relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. R. Ochhavlal and Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518 (Guj). In the context of these facts, it appears to us that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X