SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(All) 740

SATISH CHANDRA, MUFTI BAHA-UD-DIN FAROOQI
Hargu Charan Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
R.R. Agarwal, A. Gupta

JUDGMENT

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











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top