It was number filed.
The return had to be filed within 35 days of the service of the numberice.
T. Desai, S. K. Aiyar, R. N. Sachthey, B. D. Sharma and P. Nayar, for the respondents.
Appeal from the judgment And order dated February 25, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
D. Karkhanis, Champat Rai, Nand Gopal, A. T. M. Sampat and E. C. Agarwala, for the appellants.
Further numberices were served on two occasions.
It filed a return on November 18, 1961, showing income of Rs.
Although those proceedings were still pending a writ petition was filed on August 26, 1966 in the High Court challenging, inter alia, the validity and the companystitutionality of s. 23 5 of the Act of 1922 and ss.
a of s. 271 l of the Act of 1961 imposing a penalty of Rs.
On May 26, 1960, a numberice under s. 22 2 of that Act was served on the firm calling upon it to submit a return of its income for the assessment year 1960 61 accounting year ending October 31, 1959 .
3,55,566.
After companysidering the explanation submitted by the assessee the Income tax Officer made an order on November 19, 1966 under cl.
s. 23 5 of the Act of 1922 the tax payable by the firm as also the amount to be included in the income of each partner was determined.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing a petition under Arts.
Appellant No.
The Income tax Officer companypleted the assessment on November 23, 1964, companyputing the total income of the firm at Rs.
226 and 227 of the Constitution.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the same date i.e. November 23, 1964, the Income tax Officer issued a numberice under S. 271 read with s. 274 of the Income tax Act 1961 calling upon the firm to show cause why an order imposing a penalty should number be passed on account of its failure to furnish the return within time.
1,03,434 for numbercompliance with the numberice under S. 22 2 of the 1922 Act.
4,75,368.
The appellants took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging the imposition of penalty.
1 which carries on business in Delhi was registered as a firm under s. 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
1593 of 1969.
The High Court did number accede to any of the companytentions of the present appellants and the petition was dismissed.
1247 of 1967.
