9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was issued a notice under s. 210 for payment of tax of Rs. 1,22,765. The demand was based on the income of Rs. 1,88,870. The company filed an estimate on 29th June, 1971 showing the nil income and nil demand. The assessee company filed its return showing an income of Rs. 5,99,020 against which the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 6,40,342. The ITO initiated penalty proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default under s. 212(3) of the IT Act, 1961." The ITO was not satisfied with the explanation and he came to the conclusion that the assessee company did not file the estimate deliberately. He therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000. 2. The assessee came in appeal before the AAC and contended that the appellant had filed a nil estimate under s. 212(1) on 29th June, 1971 and therefore, the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was never allowed any opportunity of being heard. Sri Kothari relying in 117 ITR 416, 85 ITR 77, 92 ITR 248 and 110 ITR 54, stated that the ITO without affording an opportunity for the offence cannot impose the penalty for the offence which was not brought specifically to the notice of the assessee. He accordingly urged that the penalty order passed by the ITO was illegal. 5. Sri Chakrab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(3) were not applicable at all. In spite of the fact that the assessee by its letter dt. 28th March, 1977 protested the show cause notice of the assessing officer, the assessing officer did not allow any other opportunity stating the fact that the penalty proceedings had been initiated not for the default of s. 273(1)(a) or (b) but for 273(c) of the Act. There is nothing wrong with the initiation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
