Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 34 1977 SLD 34 (1978) 37 TAX 111

Income Tax Reference No. 2 of 1974, decision dated: 1-8-1975
M.C. PATHAK, C.J. AND D.M. SEEN, J
B. P. Saraf for the assessee. G. K. Talukdar for the Commissioner

ASSAM FRONTIER VENEER AND SAW MILLS

VS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 271,256

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 271(1)(a)--Penalty-Return not filed in time-Petition for extension of time filed after due date for filing return-Na order passed-Penalty levied for non-filing return-Whether valid in law -Held yes-Amount of penalty not quantified in order-Whether invalidated the penalty order-Held no. B. Indian Income Tux Act, 1961-Section 256(1) -Reference to High Court-Appellate Tribunal remanding order to Appellate Assistant Commissioner-- Whether reference can be filed against that order-Held yes. The Income tax Officer is not obligated to take into consideration an application for extention of time to tile his return in pursuance of a notice under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by an assessee in accordance with Form 6, rule 13 of the Income-tax Rules.1962, when it is admittedly submitted long after the due date for filing the return, unless there be prima facie valid grounds taken therein, explaining the reasons for the delay. The Income-tax Officer is competent to impose penalty under section 271(1)(a) without passing any orders on such application for extention of time. The failure of the Income-tax Officer to quantify the amount of penalty in his order will not invalidate the same. Where the basis for calculation has been laid down in the Act itself, there can be no legal requirement that the Income-tax Officer should indicate what was the basis for his calculation when the period of default and quantification of penalty could be found in the order of the Income-tax Officer. Merely because the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the Tribunal, a reference under section 256(1) of the Act does not become inadmissible. Case followed to: TRIKAMLAL MANEKLAL, In re (1958) 33 ITR 725 (Bom). Cases referred: CIT v. Ratna Kanti Bhuyan (1976) 103 I TR 397 (Gauhati), Venkata Krishnaiah (T.) & Co. v. Cir (1974) 93 ITR 297 (AP). ORDER D.M. SEN J.-This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, on certain questions of law arising out of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunals order passed in I.T.As. Nos. 3238 (Gau) of 1969-70 and 3387 (Gau) of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492