1983 (12) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed a penalty for delay of five months. The assessee had, however, applied for extension of time upto 15th Nov., 1975. The ITO did not consider this application. The CIT (A) following interalia the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Prakashan (IT Ref. No. 126 judgement dt. 16th July 1980), held that no penalty for delay upto 30th Nov., 1974 could be levied. He, therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r it is seen that the total of advance tax paid upto December, 1973 and T.D.S comes to Rs. 25,278 and the assessee is entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,305 because the assessed tax was only Rs. 23,973. The CIT (A)'s order is based on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Ochhalval & Co. (1976) 105 ITR 518 (Guj). 4. In the case of R. Ochhalvlal & Co. the argument was that n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 's interest. the delay works against this interest. Therefore, this reasoning that the assessee's conduct showed absence of mens rea would not apply in the case of R. Ochavlal. Secondly in that case it was found that as a result of seizure of certain documents the assessee had earned income which was not disclosed by its books of accounts produced before the ITO and such undisclosed transactions w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X