9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the following question under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the AAC's order cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,02,765 imposed by the ITO under s. 9(a) of the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964, for the delayed filing of the return for this year ? " Under the Act, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able cause for the delay was finding of fact, it did not give rise to a question of law. We have examined the circumstances of the case and we find that we have to disallow this petition on various grounds. The legal ground relied upon by the AAC following the Calcutta High Court judgment was that there was no penalty prescribed for late filing of a return. The penalty is for not filing the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter, where it seems the answer to the question is quite obvious. On the other hand, the second aspect of the matter, namely, that the assessee had a reasonable cause for filing the return late which was rejected by the ITO, appears to have appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On this point, the Tribunal observed in its substantive order as under: " Incidentally it may be added t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 310 by the ITO. Against this order, the assessee appealed to the AAC for a further reduction from the income which led to a further amount of Rs. 1,70,890 being reduced in the income. Consequently, the total loss assessed was Rs. 7,74,200. With such a loss, it would be reasonable for the assessee to think that no return had to be filed under the Surtax Act. This is the point which seems to have ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
