9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under section 27(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for non-compliance with notice u/s.139(2) for the assessment year 1973-74. 2. Reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income. 3. Validity of the application seeking extension of time. 4. Applicability of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in a similar case. 5. Interpretation of statutory obligations in relation to penalty imposition. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 1,255 imposed by the Income Tax Officer under section 27(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74. The penalty was imposed due to the non-compliance of the assessee in filing the return of income under section 139(2) of the Act before the specified deadline. The Income Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings based on this non-compliance. 2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in his order, found that the assessee had applied for an extension of time for filing the return along with similar applications for firms in which the assessee was a partner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner concluded that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, as the request for extension of time was not rejected by the department, and the delay was justified due to pending audit work. Consequently, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner canceled the penalty levied under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act for the same assessment year. 3. The Revenue, aggrieved by the decision, contended that there was no reasonable cause for the delay, as the return was not filed by the due date, and the application for extension of time was allegedly invalid. The Revenue also argued against the reference made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to a decision of the Karnataka High Court, stating that the facts of that case were different. 4. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and analyzed the facts of the case. It noted that the assessee had applied for an extension of time, and there was no evidence of rejection by the Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal observed that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was not questioned by the department, and there was no indication of willful default. Referring to established legal principles, including the Hindustan Steel Ltd case and a recent decision of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal concluded that there was no conscious disregard of statutory obligations by the assessee, justifying the levy of the penalty. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, canceling the penalty. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision based on the absence of a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income.
|
