TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmity noticed by the Tribunal ?" This reference pertains to two assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70. The assessee had filed his returns late. The return for the assessment year 1967-68 was filed on May 7, 1968, and for the assessment year 1969-70, it was filed on March 7, 1972. As there was delay in filing the returns, show-cause notices were issued to the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192, the Income-tax Officer held that the penalty leviable was nil for both those years. After these orders were passed by the Income-tax Officer, section 271(1)(a) was amended retrospectively, i.e., from April 1, 1962. As a result of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision has been reversed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal must be held to be bad in law. In the case of Addl. CIT v. I. M. Patel and Co. [1992] 196 ITR 297, the Supreme Court has held that there is nothing in section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires that mens rea has to be established by the Department before penalty can be levied under that section for delay in filing the return. It is for the assessee, should he file a belated return, to show "reasonable cause" for the delay. Therefore, it will have to be held that the Tribunal was not right in striking down the impugned orders of penalty passed by the Income-tax Officer. It was, however, urged by learned counsel for the assessee tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the provision for levying penalty did not become applicable. No doubt the presumption to be raised is rebuttable presumption and it can be rebutted by the Department, but there is no material on the basis of which we can say that the Department has rebutted such a presumption in this case. As a presumption will have to be raised in this case because of charging of interest, it will have to be further held that the assessee had filed the returns within the extended period of time. Considering this fact and the fact that these two cases pertain to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, we do not think it fit to send the matter back to the Tribunal. Therefore, even though the basis on which the Tribunal set aside the order of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|