TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Aditanar Educational Institution [1997 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] the assessee claiming exemption u/ss.11 and 12 of the Act, should mandatorily file return of income as the assessee’s claim for exemption could be decided by the department only after relevant material is placed before the department by filing the return of income. The provisions of section 273-B mandates that penalty is not to be levied if a reasonable cause is established. In the present case, the Parliament had inserted section 272A in the provisions of section 273-B only by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2012. Therefore, during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, levy of penalty is mandatory even if there is a reasonable cause. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by reasonable cause in not filing the return of income within time on the advise received from the deceased Accounts-in-charge, which was accepted by the appellant due to ignorance of law and therefore the penalty levied requires to be cancelled having regard to the ratio of the following decisions : [1] MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD., reported in 118 ITR 326 [SC] [2] K.P.V. SHAIK MOHAMMED ROWTHER CO., reported in 232 ITR 176 [Mad] [3] P.v. DEVASSY reported in 84 ITR 502 [Ker] 4. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant had not acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of obligations for the alleged default and therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before AO stating that the return was not fiied within due date prescribed u/s 139(4A) following the advice given by the Accounts Manger of the trust viz., Shri Obaiah. The said explanation was rejected by the AO by holding that plea of ignorance of law cannot be accepted. Then he proceeded with levy of penalty as provided u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act at the rate of ₹ 100/- per day vide order dated 17/10/2013 and accordingly levied penalty of ₹ 54,100/- for delay of 541 days. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order, had confirmed the penalty placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax vs. Malad Jain Yuvk Mandal Medical R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee-trust. He submitted that ignorance of law cannot be valid reason for violating the mandatory provisions of section 139(4A) of the Act. The provisions of section 273(b) of the Act which prescribes reasonable cause for non levy of penalty does not include penalty u/s 272(2)(e) during the relevant period under consideration. 6. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether levy of penalty u/s 272(2)(e) of the Act is justified, having regard to the fact that delay in filing return of income within due date prescribed u/s 139(4A) is on account of ignorance of law. The provisions of section 139(4A) of the Act lay down tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
