TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law for our opinion i: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITO had jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(a), I.T. Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of the first return filed under section 139(4), I.T. Act, 1961, when the assessment was made with reference to the second return submitted under the same provision ? 2. Whether, on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67, the assessee filed a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 18,429. Daring the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO issued notice to the petitioner requiring to show cause why penalty under s. 271(1)(a) should not be imposed for the delay in filing the return. After hearing the assessee, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,476. The assessee went up in appeal and then in further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income which he was required to furnish under sub-s. (1) of s. 139. In the present case, the assessee was the person who could be said to have been required to file the return under s. 139(1) because she did in fact furnish the return which was taken as the basis of the assessment. She was hence the assessee who was undoubtedly late in filing the return. The authorities below have concu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
