TMI Blog1976 (5) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sept., 1970 has bee filed on 31st Dec., 1970. There was thus a delay of three months. A notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for late filing of return was served on the assessee but no explanation was offered before the ITO who levied a penalty of Rs. 1,185. The appeal was heard exparte even before the AAC. In the grounds of appeal it was stated that the assessee was a partner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the non-completion of the firm's accounts in which the assessee is a partner is not a responsible cause for the late filing of the return and that the default of the firm will not provide sufficient reason for the partner for not filing the return. Accordingly, the AAC confirmed the imposition of the penalty. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned departmental r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d how the assessee can compel the ITO to pass orders on an application in form No. 6. We can understand that the assessee should obtain orders on the application if there was a legal obligation on the ITO to pass such an order, and the assessee has a right to compel the ITO to do so. That, however, is not the case here. Therefore, all that the assessee can do, and he did in this case, was to reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
