TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst year there was delay of 4 years 8 months, in the second 3 years 11 months, in the third 2 years 9 months and in the fourth one year 11 months. The assessee tried to explain the delay for the first year by saying that the matter had escaped his memory and that his income was share income from a firm and it took time to get the share particulars. He, however, made no attempt at all to give any explanation for the last three years. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(a) for all the four years for filing the returns very late in addition to charging interest on the amounts of tax due on the returns. The assessee carried the matters in appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. From a reading of the appellate or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished and that no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee has been shown justifying the levy of penalty. In support of the view taken by the Tribunal Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the assessee, relies upon a Bench decision of this court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Narayanadas Ramkishan [1975] 100 ITR 18 (AP) in which Obul Reddi, Chief justice, construed the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) in a particular manner. As against this Sri P. Rama Rao, standing counsel for the revenue, relied on a Bench decision of this court in M. Venkatarayudu v. Union of India [1975] 99 ITR 448 (AP) and a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that by levy of interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer must be deemed to have granted time up to the date of filing the return of income ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that even if the return was filed under section 139(4) no penalty was leviable ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) ? We, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the above questions to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
