Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.15 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M. Farahatullah on 12 December, 1979 cites

Dawn & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 August, 1971

The respondent-assessee, an individual, has filed his return of income for the assessment year 1964-65, for the relevant accounting year ending with March 31, 1964, on March 27, 1968, instead of filing the same on or before September 30, 1964. The ITO holding that the assessee failed to file the return within the prescribed time-limit without reasonable cause has imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,940 under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act by his order dated March 18, 1971. The appeal preferred by the assessee to the AAC was unsuccessful. The further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed cancelling the penalty holding that the Revenue has not established that the assessee has failed to furnish the return within time without reasonable cause. The Tribunal was of the view that the onus is on the Revenue to establish that the assessee is guilty of contumacious conduct and that the assessee has failed to furnish the return in time. It relied upon the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Dawn & Co. v. CIT and Devassy v. CIT [1912] 84 ITR 502, in support of this proposition of law. This legal position has not been accepted by a Full Bench of this court in Addl.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 17 - K K Mathew - Full Document

P.V. Devassy vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 August, 1971

The respondent-assessee, an individual, has filed his return of income for the assessment year 1964-65, for the relevant accounting year ending with March 31, 1964, on March 27, 1968, instead of filing the same on or before September 30, 1964. The ITO holding that the assessee failed to file the return within the prescribed time-limit without reasonable cause has imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,940 under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act by his order dated March 18, 1971. The appeal preferred by the assessee to the AAC was unsuccessful. The further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed cancelling the penalty holding that the Revenue has not established that the assessee has failed to furnish the return within time without reasonable cause. The Tribunal was of the view that the onus is on the Revenue to establish that the assessee is guilty of contumacious conduct and that the assessee has failed to furnish the return in time. It relied upon the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Dawn & Co. v. CIT and Devassy v. CIT [1912] 84 ITR 502, in support of this proposition of law. This legal position has not been accepted by a Full Bench of this court in Addl.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 20 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... vs Dargapandarinath Tuljayya & Co. on 10 December, 1975

CIT v. Dargapandarinath Tuljayya & Co. [1977] 107 ITR 850 (AP), wherein it was held that the assessee has to satisfactorily explain the delay for not filing the return within the period of limitation prescribed and that it is not for the Revenue to establish that the assessee has failed to furnish the return within time without reasonable cause. In this view, the Tribunal's legal reasoning in arriving at the conclusion that there was no justification for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is illegal and erroneous in law.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 103 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1