TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted its return for the year 1962-63 on August 1, 1964. The ITO was of the view that the return ought to have been filed on or before June 30, 1962. Accordingly, in his opinion, penalty was leviable under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and, hence, he issued notice against the respondent under s. 274 of the Act. The assessee made its submissions but the ITO was not satisfied with the same and he imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,250. The assessee-firm thereupon preferred an appeal before the AAC. Various contentions were urged before the AAC. These are summarised in para. 2 of the statement of the case. The AAC rejected all the contentions save and except a fairly minor one pertaining to tax of Rs. 1,642.48 paid by the assessee-firm on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the period for filing the return could be deemed to have been extended as the Income-tax Officer levied interest for the period of the delay in the submission of the return ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in the submission of the return could be deemed to have been condoned as the Income-tax Officer levied interest for the period of the delay in the submission of the return ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of penalty was liable to be set aside on the ground that the penalty proceedings were not initiated in conformity with the requirements of law on the point ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussion. Accordingly, we answer questions Nos. 1 to 4 as under: No.1 : In the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No. 2: In the negative and against the assessee. No. 3 : In the negative and against the assessee. No. 4: We are of the opinion that the order of penalty was not liable to be set aside on the ground indicated in the question. As far as question No. 5 is concerned, the position is self-evident and the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee seems to have been rightly rejected both by the AAC and by the Tribunal. It is not possible to consider the advance tax paid by the partners as advance tax payable by the firm. Similarly, as far as question No. 6 is concerned, the language of the statutory provision as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanation, only the sums deducted at source and advance tax paid by the assessee-firm was deductible at the time when penalty was required to be calculated. If that be so, question No. 7 would be required to be answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, we hold as far as this question is concerned that both the AAC and the Tribunal had erred in allowing credit for the tax of Rs. 1,642.48 which had been paid on provisional assessment. We may add that this view was the correct one on the language of the provision as it then stood and as interpreted by the court. However, in view of the subsequent retrospective amendment, the view must be declared to be erroneous. The Commissioner to get the costs of the reference from the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
