1982 (6) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment year before 31st July,1974. The assessee, however, filed its return only on 31st Jan, 1975. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings for the delay in filing the return. The assessee filed the following reply dt. 20th Oct, 1976 to the penalty notice: "While acknowledging receipt of your notice referred to above on behalf of the assessee I beg to submit the following for your good-selves" kind considerations and favourable orders: The assessee firm had been undergoing a lot of difficulties due to changes in the post of accountants in their firm during accounting year 1973-74. As a matter of fact four to five had to be changed and as such they have left the accounts of the firm in a pell-mell condition. The accounts of the firm could be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty should be cancelled. 4. The ITO also levied penalty of Rs. 918 u/s 273 of the Act for failure to file estimate of advance tax u/s 212(3A) of the Act which was due to be filed by 15th March, 1974 rejecting in the sample explanation offered for the delay. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the penalty. The ld. counsel appearing for the assessee urged the same reasons as advanced for the delay in filing the return as constituting reasons for the failure to file the estimate u/s 212(3A) of the Act. 5. On behalf of the revenue of ld. Deptl Rep. Sri Subramaniam very hotly contested the appeals. He relied heavily on the order of the IT Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench comprising Sri Bishan Lal and Sri S. Grover in ITA No.281/chd/76-77 (asst.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... led on the point as to whether the assessee had an existing munim who left the service or the service of a new munim were required for the purpose of finalisation of accounts. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, the assessee had drawn the attention of the ITO in the reply submitted by it to the penalty notice that there were frequent changes of accountants and that, therefore, the accounts could not finalised. The ITO has not disputed the correctness of this submission. On the other hand, he has observed in his penalty order that the changes of accountants could not be considered as a proper reason. 7. So far as Tamil Nadu is concerned the ruling of the Madras High Court in case of V.L. Dutt vs. CIT 1976 CTR (Mad) 210 : (1976) 10....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....expression 'without reasonable cause' in the substantive. Part of s.271(1)(a) and would have provided for the assessee to get out of the operation of this provision in s.146. The rigour of the principle applicable to the criminal prosecution will not apply to the proceedings u/s 271(1)(a) so that even in case where the assessee fails to extend co-operation and withholds any explanation for the delay in filing the return he is not liable to be penalised unless the department established that he had acted in deliberate disregard of his statutory obligations". 8. Applying the dictum of the Supreme Court which has been followed by the Madras High Court in the above case, we have to examine the fact of this case. The assessee had submitted befo....