TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, has passed identical orders confirming the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, all the above four writ petitions may be disposed of by the following common order. For convenience I shall refer to the case of the petitioner in W. P. No. 4416 of 1989. According to the petitioner, he is a partner in a registered firm, Lakshmi Narayan Gowri Shankar. It is stated that for the purpose of filing his income-tax and wealth-tax returns for the accounting year ending on March 31, 1983, corresponding to the assessment year 1983-84, he forwarded the various documents and details regarding his other income along with the receipts for payment of Life Insurance Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated January 14, 1988, levied penalty of Rs. 9,554 for the delay in the filing of the return for the period from February, 1984 to June, 1985, holding that there was no reasonable cause for not filing the return up to January 21, 1984, on which date the firm had filed its return of income, there was no reasonable cause for the delay subsequent thereto. Similar order was passed for the next assessment year 1984-85. Against the orders of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levying penalty, the petitioner filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore. Following the earlier orders, the Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed the order passed by the Inspecting A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a chart containing details regarding returns due, extension of time granted, paper sent to the chartered accountant, further reminder, date of filing of the firm's return as well as date of filing of the assessee's return, etc. Since those particulars are relevant for the disposal of the writ petitions, I am here extracting the same. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shiv Chand Dalmia Shiv Gopal Dalmia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1984-85 before July 31, 1984. It is also not disputed that due to the inability the petitioners sought for extension of time and the Income-tax Officer has also granted extension for filing return up to December 31, 1983, for the assessment year 1983-84 and up to December 31, 1984, for the assessment year 1984-85. According to the petitioners, the relevant papers including the signed return were sent to their chartered accountant on December 3, 1983, for the assessment year 1983-84 and on November 19, 1984, for the assessment year 1984-85. It is also stated that their chartered accountant was reminded by them on March 14, 1985. Ultimately the firm's return was filed on January 21, 1984 for the assessment year 1983-84 and on January 24, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by sub-section (1) of section 139 or by such notice, as the case may be, or" A reading of the above provision would go to show that if there is a reasonable cause for failure to furnish the return as required under the Act, there is no need to impose any penalty. Learned counsel also very much relied on the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Dargapandarinath Tuljayya and Co. [1977] 107 ITR 850. The judges in the Full Bench while construing section 271(1)(a) of the said Act have observed as under : "The object of a taxation statute is not only to augment the revenue for the State but also bring about social justice and enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpose a penalty. Here, in our case, except the statement that they have entrusted the papers to their previous chartered accountant and due to the fault or mistake of the said chartered accountant, the filing of the return was delayed no other material was there. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that the very same chartered accountant on the basis of the instructions given by the petitioners filed the firm's return even on January 21, 1984. It is the case of the petitioners that their major income is only the share income from the other firms. If that is so, there is no acceptable reason for not filing their returns immediately or within a reasonable time. As rightly observed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, there is no accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
