SATISH CHANDRA, MUFTI BAHA-UD-DIN FAROOQI
Hargu Charan Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Respondent
Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. THE assessee filed returns of income on 27th August, 1968, for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. On 14th August, 1969, he filed revised returns for all the aforesaid years, except for the year 1966-67. The income in the original as well as in the revised returns was as follows:
Year Original return Revised return
Rs. Rs.
1964-65 9,304 14,304
1965-66 9,913 14,932
1966-67 8,903 15,403
1967-68 17,715 20,715
1968-69 22,397 24,397
2. THE ITO accepted the revised returns and passed the assessment orders on different dates of August, 1969, except for the year 1966-67, for which the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 16,903. In the assessment orders he recorded a finding that the assessee filed returns late and that he had not filed estimate of income under Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act. Hence, proceedings for levying the penalty were initiated.
In due course a notice was issued to show cause why penalty under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Act be not imposed. The assessee made an application to the CIT under Section 271(4A) of the Act praying that the imposable penalty be waived or reduced.
3. THE
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.