9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of this letter by the assessee has been shown to us by the Deptl. Rep. It has been signed on behalf of Jayamal Thakore Co., Chartered Accountants by one Joshi who, the ld. counsel Shri Jayamal Thakore informed us, as his employee. The letter is on the letter-head of Jayamal Thakore Co. The ld. counsel also informed that the assessee has brought the notices to his office and Mr. Joshi wrote that letter. He contended that the assessee had given no authority to Mr. Joshi write that letter. The letter also mentions in the subject matter the notices u/ss. 271(1)(a) 273(b). In these circumstances it is not possible to say that the assessee did not receive the notices or that he did not get any idea whatsoever with regard to the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efault by his orders dt. 27th March, 1980 the ITO levied penalties of Rs. 893 and Rs. 1,730 respectively. On appeal the AAC confirmed the penalty for the first year but reduced the penalty for the second year to Rs. 273 only computing a lesser period of default. 2. Likewise for these assessment years the ITO levied penalties u/s. 273(b) of Rs. 419 and Rs. 259 respectively which were confirmed by the AAC. For the asst. yr. 1975-76 the ITO found the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 22,846 on 10th March, 1978 on the basis of the return filed by the first time on 31st March, 1976. No estimate of advance tax having been filed, the ITO held that there was a clear defaults u/s. 212(3). The same decision was made by him for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttend to any income-tax matter. On the basis of the above the ld. counsel has sought the cancellation of the penalty. He has also relied on the decision in 97 ITR 228, 123 ITR 907 and 127 ITR 842. 4. The facts above reproduced by the ld. counsel for the assessee before us represent a sorrow state of affairs on which I am surprised the ITO has levied a penalty and on the top of it the AAC has confirmed it fully or partially. To levy a penalty, it is necessary to issue a show cause notice, to hear the assessee, adjudicate upon his contentions come to some conclusions, and levy an appropriate quantum of penalty. What has happened in the present case is that the ITO has taken that has served some show cause notices on the assessee, has treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been signed by the ITO which made cleat mention of the initiation of the penalty proceedings. Secondly the notices which were only initially by the clerk were received by the appellant and the omission of the ITO of not having signed was not pointed out. Instead of the appellant had given the said reply dated 2nd February, 1980 in response to the said notices. Thus in my opinion the purpose of the provision of the Act in s. 274 was served that the appellant did get reasonable opportunity of being heard". For all one knows these printed notices without signature and address anybody could be blessed with without any legal implication. Apparently when some communication was received by the assessee at the time of a bereavement the clerk of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
