9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of software development sales and marketing services. For the Assessment Year 2012-13, the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act in the case of the assessee was 30.11.2012. The assessee filed return of income only on 28.5.2013. Under the provisions of Section 271F of the Act, if a person required to furnish return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act fails to furnish such return before the end of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer may direct such person shall pay, by way of penalty of a sum of Rs. 5,000. In the present case, the date of end of the relevant AY date was 31.3.2013 for the relevant asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he delay in filing the return within the period contemplated under Section 271F of the Act. The assessee explained before the CIT (Appeals) that it was a captive service provider to its holding company M/s. Matric Stream Inc. USA and was dependent on its holding company to meet its day to day operating expenses. The assessee also pointed out that the tax liability on the total income returned by the assessee in the return of income was Rs. 3,12,29,954. The assessee did not have sufficient funds to make the payment of tax on the income admitted in the return of income. The assessee pointed out that without payment of tax due on the returned income, the returns filed by the assessee will not be accepted. The assessee therefore had no option ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckoned only from the date on which Form 36, grounds of appeal and other documents singed by the Director is considered as the date of filing of the appeal. There will be a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal if it is construed that Form 36, grounds of appeal and other documents signed by the Director of the Company alone is considered as proper filing of the appeal. It has been explained in the petition of condonation of delay that the Directors controlling the affairs of the assessee was outside India and therefore they could not sign the same. It has also been submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional reason for the defective filing of the appeal, if any. 6. Though the learned Departmental Representative has prayed and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable cause for condoning the delay. The learned counsel for the assessee also drawn our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Jayanti Vs. ACIT 2015 75 Taxmann.com 248 wherein in the context of penalty under Section 271F of the Act, non-furnishing of the seized documents was held to be reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income. The learned counsel for the assessee also pointed out that though the assessee submitted financial hardship as a cause for the delay in filing the return of income, the necessary evidence and documents were not filed. The learned counsel for the assessee filed an application for admission of the following additional evidences under Rule 29 of the IT (AT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
