9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (2) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the belated filing of the return and the learned Appellate Asstt. Commissioner has not properly considered and weighed the evidence brought on record and the arguments advanced before her. 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment concerned is for the year 1969-70 for which the previous year ended on25th Jan., 1969. The return of income for this assessment year was due to be filed on or beforethe 30th Sept., 1969. It was actually filed on5th June, 1970after a delay of little over 8 months. For this default the Income-tax Officer imposed the impugned penalty which has been confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner. 3. Before the Income-tax Officer it was stated that the assessee company was carrying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re to be prepared on the basis of the payment due upto 25th Jan., 1969, whether the amount was received in full or not. He agreed with the Income-tax Officer that explanation of the assessee was not at all plausible. Another explanation for the default which was given for the first time before the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner was the delay in the completion of audit. It was stated that the audit commenced on13 May, 1969and was completed only on20th May, 1970. The Appellate Asstt. Commissioner was not satisfied with this explanation of the assessee also as according to him, it was entirely for the assessee to arrange its affairs in such a manner that the audit could be completed well in time. The AAC has also observed that no explanation wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace and non finalisation of statutory audit were the two factors which were responsible for the delay in the filing of the return of income. He prayed that the assessee company should be taken to have been prevented from filing the return of income with in the statutory period by reasonable cause and the penalty imposed may be deleted. The learned Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner. Besides, he referred to the Mysore High Court decision in Venkateswara Power Rolling Mills & Another vs. CIT(2) and submitted on its authority that non-finalisation of audit could not be taken to be reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the return of income of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s observed as follows: " The appellant had tried to claim that as the balance sheet was signed by the auditor of20th May, 1970, it shows that audit was completed as late as May, 1970. However, if the audit had begun on13th May, 1969it cannot really be said that it took one year for auditors to complete their work. Apparently the delay must have occurred at the appellant's end. Even otherwise the appellant could have arranged its affairs in such a manner that the audit of these accounts would have been completed well in time. Once the Act provides a statutory obligation for filing the return within a given period of time, it is not open to the appellant to take shelter behind such excuses as delay in completion of audit." It does not appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
