TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act or at the latest it must have been filed on August 6, 1966, if it had to be considered as a return filed or to be filed under s. 139(2) of the Act. The actual date on which the assessee filed the return was January 9, 1967. The ITO initiated proceedings for a levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. He issued a notice to the assessee calling upon it to show cause why penalty should not be levied. The assessee did not file any reply in response to that notice. The ITO thereupon proceeded to levy a penalty in the sum of Rs. 7,614. The assessee appealed before the AAC. Apparently, even before that authority the assessee did not explain as to what prevented it from filing the return within the time allowed by s. 139 of the Act. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return within the time prescribed by law is supported by material on record and the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable one on the materials available? " We shall advert to the first question, after we deal with the second one, which is the more substantial question for decision in this reference. The penalty in question in this case is one under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. The penalty, however, cannot be levied merely because the assessee has filed its return out of time. It can be levied only on a proper finding come to by the ITO to the effect that the delay in the submission of the return was without a reasona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration is of a kind which could not have been taken into account by any Tribunal, which is required under the law to enter into the question of a reasonable cause behind the delay in filing a return in any assessee's case. All things considered, we do not find anything unreasonable in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. After all a finding as to a reasonable cause is, in the main, a finding as to a question of fact and this court will not ordinarily interfere with that conclusion in a reference, unless it could be said, with confidence, that there was absolutely no material in support of the finding or that the finding had been arrived at on a totally unreasonable view of the facts on record. Such, in our opinion, is not the, case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, it was urged by the learned standing counsel that it would have been proper for the Tribunal, before whom the explanation was offered for the first time by the assessee, to reject such explanation, for the excellent reason that it was not offered at the earlier stages of the proceedings. At any rate, it was submitted, the Tribunal might have remitted the matter for a proper investigation, by the authorities below, of the explanation newly trotted out. We do realise the inconvenience that may be caused in the process of ascertaining and evaluating facts, where contentions of fact are raised for the first time at the stage of second appeal. But the veracity of facts can be tested by any competent fact-finding body at any point of time w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
