9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance with the notice under section 139(2) for the assessment year 1973-74. 2. Reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income. 3. Application for extension of time and its validity. 4. Interpretation of statutory obligations and wilful default in the context of penalty imposition. Analysis: 1. The departmental appeal challenged the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 1,255 imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings due to the non-compliance with the notice under section 139(2) by the assessee. The Appellate Asstt. Commissioner canceled the penalty after finding a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income. The Income-tax Officer's observation that the mere handing over of books of accounts to auditors does not fulfill the statutory obligation was a key point in the penalty imposition. 2. The Appellate Asstt. Commissioner noted that the assessee, a partner in two firms, had applied for an extension of time for filing the return along with similar applications for the firms. The absence of communication rejecting the extension request and the reasonable cause for the delay, as explained by the assessee, led to the cancellation of the penalty. The Appellate Asstt. Commissioner's consolidated order also canceled the penalty under the Wealth-tax Act for the same assessment year. 3. The Revenue contended that there was no reasonable cause for the delay and questioned the validity of the extension application filed by the assessee. The Revenue argued that the due date for compliance was not met, and the reference to a decision of the Karnataka High Court was deemed irrelevant to the case at hand. The assessee, on the other hand, relied on the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner's order and referred to the cancellation of another penalty under the Wealth-tax Act for support. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, emphasizing that the request for extension was not rejected by the Income-tax Officer and that the explanation provided by the assessee was not refuted. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence showing wilful default and referred to established legal principles regarding penalty imposition for non-compliance with statutory obligations. Citing relevant Supreme Court and High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that there was no conscious disregard of statutory obligations by the assessee, leading to the confirmation of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner's order canceling the penalty.
|
