TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause." 3. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the return was filed late due to the negligence on the part of the counsel of the assessee and it was also his contention that in the circumstances penalty should not have been imposed upon him. Reliance was placed on Salahuddin Ors. vs. ITO (1983) 16 TTJ (Ind) 392, ITO vs. Pashupati Banerjee (1982) 13 TTJ (Cal) 440. Apart from this reliance was placed upon Laxmi Cutpiece Bhandar vs. CIT (1989) 31 ITD 421 (Del). 4. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was his submission that no evidence had been filed by the assessee to support his contention that there was a negligence on the part of the counsel. Apart from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has relied upon Lakshmi Cutpiece Bhandar vs. ITO. 6. The facts of this case are that: "For the asst. yr. 1982-83, the assessee registered firm filed its return after a delay of 14 months. The reason for the delay in filing of the return, given by the assessee before the authorities was that the return along with the other papers had been handed over to the counsel who was to file the return with the ITO at Shivpuri and the counsel who was residing at Gwalior misplaced the return along with papers handed over to him. Therefore, the assessee contended that the delay was due to a reasonable cause and that there was no conscious default by the assessee. Further, it was also contended that the tax paid in advance was more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accountant of the firm of which assessee was a partner had remained ill and share from the firm could not be gathered and the assessee also could not ascertain the sources other than the partnership. This explanation was rejected by the ITO and penalty under s. 271(1)(a) was imposed and the Tribunal held that the ITO had not brought any material on record to show that the explanation given by the assessee was false and hence the penalty had been deleted. Before us, the assessee has led no evidence to support his contention that there was a negligence on the part of the counsel of the assessee. No proof or evidence has been placed before us showing that the assessee had supplied the papers to the counsel well within the time. No effort has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use if that is held to be so, then the entire Act would collapse because some amount of responsibility has to be shared for filing of return in time by the assessee. During the course of argument, it was brought out before us that the assessee is a director of an import-export company and as such it is not feasible to presume that he would be totally ignorant about his responsibility and would not be conscious of discharging the same. Had he been an illiterate person, probably a greater responsibility could have been fixed on the counsel but in the peculiar circumstances of the case before us, that cannot be held to be so. We are of the opinion that the filing of return is an act which requires some amount of active participation on the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
