9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enience. First appeal is in respect of levy of penalty in a sum of Rs. 712 for late filing of return whereas the second is in respect of levy of penalty for concealment under s. 271(1)(c) in a sum of Rs. 1,378, both having been confirmed by the AAC. 2. The assessee is a teacher and the assessment year involved in 1978-79. During the year under consideration, he had gifted a sum of Rs. 10,000 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranted. About late filing the return, he over and again submitted that nothing an be stronger case of bona fide belief than the one because the assessee genuinely gave a gift of Rs. 10,000 and could not be under an impression that he is liable to tax. Regarding concealment, he submitted that explanation, if read with proviso given thereunder, is also taken into consideration, it no more survives ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stage of the AAC whereas his first appeal was dismissed. The Explanation with proviso made thereunder is available in the order of the ITO and we don't reproduce the same here again. So far late filing of return is concerned, we are with the ld. counsel for the assessee on the plea that it was a case of bona fide belief as the assessee could not think of filing a return simply because he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
