AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80 and 30-6-1981, whereas they were filed on 28-9-1981, 21-7-1983, 27-7-1983 and 11-8-1983 respectively after a delay of 38 months, 48 months, 36 months and 25 months respectively. Accordingly the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a). The explanation of the assessee was that there were disputes in the family in regard to the will left by late Shri Keshoramji with the result that court cases were going on amongst the members of the family regarding the property and the execution of the will due to which statements in the accounts could not be prepared in time. It was also said that it was not certain whether the said property would be held to belong to the assessee or would go to the other legatees and, therefore, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 1978-79, return had been filed voluntarily before the issue of the notice under section 148. The learned AAC found that even though litigation was still continuing, the assessee filed the returns for the assessment years in question and, therefore, it could not be concluded that the managing partners were so occupied that they could not file the returns in time. However, he held that the ITO should reduce the period of default for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 by two months and one month respectively, in view of Form No. 6 already filed. However, so far as the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 are concerned, the penalties were confirmed as levied. 4. These appeals had been originally heard on 4-8-1989 and were disposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 of the ITAT Rules, 1962 for leave to file the copy of the partnership deed dated 1-4-1976 and the copies of the order-sheet before the Court of Civil and Sessions Judge, Jaipur as also a copy of his order dated 22-12-1983 in suit No. 82 of 1981. It was said that these evidences were neither asked for by the authorities below nor could they be submitted and that they were not new. The reception of this evidence was, however, objected to on behalf of the Department. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the assessee on the following decisions of Jaipur Bench : (i) Keshavlal Chandanlal v. ITO [1981] 4 Tax World 42 (Jp.), (ii) Smt. Krishna Sethi v. ITO [1963] 6 Tax World 32 (Jp.) and (iii) Suwalal Lal Chand v. ITO [1985] 4 Tax World 278 (Jp.)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which it was so decided. The copies of these papers formed part of the judicial record. They are not only relevant but also come from proper custody and there can be no doubt about their genuineness. We, therefore, permit them to be taken on the record. The matter also does not need to be restored to any of the Income-tax authorities as they do not require any rebuttal or verification. 8. The department is not in appeal against the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner, only the assessee is in appeal. In his order since the learned AAC directed that the existence of a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return be accepted for the first two years at 2 months and one month respectively, it follows therefrom that he w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not filed within the period of one month allowed therein but long thereafter. Now the essential thing is the existence in reality of a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return and not the moving of an application for extension of time. Though the moving of an application for extension of time may show the consistency of conduct of the assessee, but there may be variety of reasons on account of which it may not be some times possible to give an application for extension of time. In the present case the applications for extension of time were given for each of the years. In fact, if we see the dates of the applications for extension of time (given for different years) we find that they give the same reason and cover the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing different. The suit No. 82 of 1981 was decided by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Jaipur on 22-12-1983. It is not known whether thereafter the parties accepted the Court's decision or rested satisfied or whether the aggrieved party appealed against the said order before the district Judge/High Court. On facts appearing from the papers and record, we are of the view that on a reasonable estimate, the assessee could be said to have had a reasonable cause for the period from 1-7-1978 to 30-6-1982. In the earlier order dated 29-8-1989 of the Tribunal, also (though it had to be recalled and set aside on the assessee's Miscellaneous Application as aforesaid) reasonable cause had been held to exist up to 30-6-1982 (though for the assessm....