9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question as follows: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) is justified in law ? " The assessee is a registered firm and the relevant accounting period was the financial year ended on March 31, 1966. The return of income under section 139(2) became due on October 7, 1966. The assessee did not file its return by the said date nor did it apply for extension of time until December 17, 1966. The request for extension of time made on December 17, 1966, was not granted by the Income-tax Officer. The return was filed on February 22, 1967, and thereafter the assessment was finalised on February 28, 1967, in the status of the registered firm. The firm's income-tax amounted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under the Act to direct any assessee to pay by way of penalty the sums calculated in the manner provided under the said sub-section. The condition precedent to be satisfied for the Income-tax Officer to levy penalty is that the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed by law. Section 271(1)(a) is in pari materia with section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. This court had occasion to consider the scope of the power under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act in Writ Petitions Nos. 3125 to 3129 of 1971 decided on 12th July, 1973. This is what this court stated in the said decision: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation." There is no finding by any of the authorities to the effect that the assessee in the instant case acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Income-tax Officer who levied the penalty rejected the explanation offered by the assessee on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to adjust properly its affairs so as to comply with the statutory re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
