TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on or before 31-7-1987. However, the same was filed on 8-7-1988. Thus, the return filed by the assessee was late by 11 complete months. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)( a ) of the Act for the default committed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)( a ) of the Act requiring the assessee to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty should not be passed. In respect to the above notice, the assessee filed written explanation on 23-1-1989, wherein the assessee has submitted that the main source of its income was from commission and one of the principals from whom commission was receivable, accounting year was closed on 30-12-1987 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was under the bona fide belief that once extension was allowed then the assessee ought not to have filed for any extension and subsequently, the return of income was filed on 8-7-1988. The assessee also cited a decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in the case of Vimal Chand Lodha v. ITO [1992] 43 TTJ 385. 5. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty. The learned CIT(A) held that the decision relied upon by the assessee was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further observed that it was well within the knowledge of the assessee to apply for extension of time to file t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ension of time for filing of the return in Form No. 6 with the Assessing Officer and he has allowed the time upto 31-8-1987 (Copy of the acknowledgement of document No. 900217 dated 30-7-1987 is available in assessee s compilation). Shri Ravish Sood, Advocate the learned counsel for the assessee, further submitted that the assessee-firm afterwards did not apply for further extension, as it being a new firm and the aforesaid year under consideration was its first assessment year, therefore, it was under a bona fide belief that once the extension was allowed then the assessee was not required to file any extension. Thereafter, the assessee-firm filed the said income-tax return as on 8-7-1988. 6.1 In view of the above submissions, Shri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... staining the imposition of impugned penalty had considered the actual facts of the case in the right perspective. Both the authorities below have not discussed the contention of the assessee regarding the bona fide belief. Even the learned CIT(A) has not discussed in his order regarding the filing of extension application. Therefore, in the facts and the circumstances of the present case, no penalty under section 271(1)( a ) was leviable. For argument sake, if at all, there was any delay in filing the return, the same could have been ignored. In this regard, it may be observed here that under section 271(1)( a ), discretion has been given to the Assessing Officer to impose or not to impose a penalty in the facts and the circumstances of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
