TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) the assessee in response to said notice filed a written explanation on 3rd April 1978 wherein he has taken number of pleas against levy of penalty. The ITO, however, did not accept the contentions raised by the assessee and he levied penalties of varying amounts for the three years under appeal. The AAC cancelled the penalties for the reasons given by him in his order. Hence these appeals by the revenue before the Tribunal. The assessee filed cross objections supporting the order of the AAC. 2. Mr.Sarkar appearing for the Revenue contended that the AAC wrongly accepted the plea taken by the assessee that he was under the bonafide impression that the returns were filed by his lawyer and that he came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no substance. Firstly it is not clear whether there is an interpolation. It may be that the Income-tax Officer forgot to mention 140A(3)and it was subsequently added. Even otherwise, the proceeding u/s 271(1)(a)which had been validly initiated cannot become invalid. There is no illegality committed. The argument of Mr. Dalmia is totally misconceived. 4. Coming to the question of mens rea, in our opinion, it has to be considered along with all the facts and circumstances of the case and the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(a)cannot be decided solely on that basis. The matter will have to be looked on overall basis before finally coming to the conclusion as to whether penalty has to be levied in a particular case. The decisions relied on by Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns. They are all verifiable from the admitted records. We are, therefore, in agreement with the AAC and accept the plea taken by the assessee that he was under the impression that the returns were filed by his lawyer and that he came to know that the returns were not filed after the issue of notice u/s 148.Therefore,there was reasonable cause till the notices were received by him on 29th November, 1976. 6. The second part of the delay viz, after the issue of notices u/s 148 then has to be considered. The assessee took about a year after the receipt of the notice u/s 148. It may be again mentioned that for the asst.yr.1976-77 the return was due on 30th June 1976 and it was filed on 4th November 1977 alongwith the returns for the earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
