1976 (11) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings for non compliance with the notice u/s.139(2). The assessee had explained that the audit of the account was not complete and that application for extension of time had also been filled. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee explanation on the ground that the assessee obligation does not cease by merely handing over the books of account to his auditors. He further observed that even by the extended time granted up to 31st December, 1973 the return was not filed. He, therefore, imposed the penalty as aforesaid. 2. On appeal the Appellant Asst. Commissioner found that the assessee who is a partner in the firm of M/s. AR. A.P. Viswanatha Nadar & Sons and in the firm of M/s. A.R.A.P. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iled seeking extension of time was invalid. He also submitted that the Appellate Asst. Commissioner erred in referring to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Venkataeswara Power Rolling Mills & Another vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bangalore since the facts in that case were different from the facts in the instant case. 4. On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on the order of the Appellate Asst. Commissioner. The learned representative for the assessee also referred us to the order of the Appellate Tribunal passed cancelling of penalty levied under s. 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the same assessment year in the departmental appeal against the consolidated order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee did apply for extension of time till 31st December, 1972 and that the same was granted. Apart from the explanation offered by the assessee which has not been found to be incorrect or false by the department, no material is on record to show that the assessee committed wilful default. The law relating to levy of penalties for non-compliance with the statutory obligations is now well-settled by the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa.(2) The above dictum was followed recently by the Madras High Court in the case of V.L. Dutt vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.(3). As per the above rulings it is clear that there should be a conscious or deliberate disregard of the statutory obligations on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X