1979 (8) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r extension of time for filing the returns. The ITO, therefore, initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) and issued show-cause notices in reply to which the assessee explained that the delay was due to non-completion of statutory audits and so the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the returns within specified time. This explanation did not find favour with the ITO. She, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 15,940 and Rs. 9,160 respectively for the two years under appeal. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC and contended that no penalty should have been imposed in this case for both the years under appeal inasmuch as there was a reasonable cause for belated filing of returns. It was pointed out that for the asst. yrs. 197....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e a reason for belated filing of return which according to him, could be filed on the basis of accounts maintained by the assesee, that in accordance with the settled law the Department is not required to prove contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a), and that the cases relied on behalf of the assessee were different in facts. The AAC further found that the assessee had not filed any application for extension of time for filing the returns, that advance taxes were paid after the due dates for filing the returns were over and that the returns were not filed immediately after the audit was completed. He, therefore, felt satisfied that the penalties were rightly levied. Hence, he confirmed the le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the reasons given by the AAC for coming to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to penalty. 7. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and considered the facts on record. The fact that the accounts maintained by the assessee and return filed by it for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 showed loss is borne out by evidence on record. The assessee's case from the very beginning was that it was under the bona fide belief that the income was not taxable and as such it had no obligation to file its return of income within the time allowed under s.139(1). The provisions of statute and the judicial pronouncements make the question clear that no penalty should be imposed where the assessee has not filed return within specified time on th....