9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 by the ITO for the asst. yr. 1975-76. 2. After hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that penalty has been levied and erroneously sustained partly by the CIT(A). The reason for this are as under. 3. The assessee is a registered firm. It has been assessed to tax by way of regular assessment. For the year under appeal, the ITO issued a notice under s. 139(2) which was served u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty order. From these reasons putforth by the assessee, it becomes clear that the return of the assessee for the immediately preceding assessment year was delayed. The return for that assessment year, namely, 1974-75, was filed only in March, 1975. Since the assessee had to bring forward various accounts and incorporate the same in the accounts for the year under appeal the process involved tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has a large number of transactions with that concern and it is also not denied that the sister concern at Mullanpur filed the return for asst. yr. 1975-76 only in Feb., 1976 as recorded in para 2 of the ld. Commr.'s order. In our considered opinion, the factum of delay in furnishing the return by the assessee for the immediately preceding assessment year the requirement of tallying the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied upon the assessee was without any justification. The delay in furnishing the return was due to reasonable cause and for such a delay, no penalty could be levied.
5. Since on merits we find that there is no case for imposition of penalty, we do not consider it necessary to go into other aspects of the matter argued before us in this case.
6. Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
