TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period - 61 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2008 - D. A. MEHTA and Z. K. SAIYED JJ. Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. None appeared for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D. A. MEHTA J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" has referred the following question under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een filed belatedly, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act and ultimately levied penalty of Rs.32,130/- for a delay of 32 months in filing the Return of Income. The assessee did not succeed in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, in second appeal before the Tribunal, the explanation tendered by the assessee was accepted and the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i A. Sheth [1981] 128 ITR 87 there was a decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ambalal Maganlal Vs. Union of India [1975] 98 ITR 237 (Guj) wherein this very issue had been concluded against the assessee and hence, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief. 5. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the Tribunal has accepted existence of reasonable cause for a part of the period of delay while rejecting the explanation for another part. In the circumstances, there is no issue of law which would require this Court to interfere. Existence or otherwise of a reasonable cause would always be dependant upon facts. The co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
