TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (2) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n., 1972 respectively. The assessee became liable for filing a return on account of income arising to it from a property at 41, Golf Links, New Delhi, which originally belonged to Shri Anup N. Kothari as an individual and which was thrown by him into the hotchpot of the family by a declaration dated 25th March, 1969. In the earlier years, the income from this property was being declared by Shri Anup N. Kothari in his individual returns. For the asst. year 1970-71 also, he declared the income from this property in his individual return, though such income had to be declared by the HUF, the assessee before us, by virtue of the declaration dated 25th March, 1969 throwing such property into the family hotchpot. Shri Anup N.Kothari discovered the mistake and filed a revised return in his individual capacity on 1st July, 1971, excluding the income from the property from his individual return. Simultaneously, he also filed the return of income of the HUF showing the income from the property in that return. On the ground that this return in the case of the assessee was delayed by 12 months, the ITO initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. Similarly, for the asst. year 1971-7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly goes to show that the assessee had acted under a mis-apprehension for the asst. year 1970-71. Shri Anup N. Kothari had applied for and obtained extension of time for filing his individual return for the asst. year 1970-71 and when he filed that return, ultimately, on 26th March, 1971, he included in his total income the income from the property which was impressed with the character of HUF property on 25th March, 1969. No motives could be attributed to him when he committed this mistake as he did not stand to gain any advantage at the expense of the Revenue by including the income of the HUF in his total income. Thus, it was nothing more than a mistake on his part. Such mistake had obviously arisen by the preparation of the return in a mechanical way as in the earlier years when the income from this property was being shown as his individual income. As soon as this mistake was discovered, he filed a revised return on 1st July, 1971 in his individual asst., excluding the income from property from his total income and he also filed a return on the same date in the case of the HUF showing the income from the property. While filing the revised return the assessee also filed a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf acquired property into the family hotchpot and he would also have known of his obligation to file the returns of the family within time. According to him no satisfactory explanation, establishing a reasonable cause for the delay, has been advanced by the assessee. In these circumstances, he argued that the orders of the AAC confirming the penalties are correct and should not be interfered with. 11. We have carefully considered the facts of the case as set out above. These facts clearly go to show that the delay in the filing of the return for the asst. year 1970-71 occurred only as a result of a Bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, as set out in the covering letter accompanying the revised return filed by Shri Anup N. Kothari. No ulterior motive could be attribute to Shri Anup N. Kothari in including the income of the family in his individual return and subsequently revising that return. It is clear that Shri Kothari's representative, who prepared the return, had prepared it in accordance with the past practice as Shri Kothari had failed to inform him about the throwing of the property into the family hotchpot. In our view' this mistake arose only out of an over....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm the penalty levied for this year under s. 271(1)(a) and dismiss the assessee's appeal ITA. No.3073/Del./1976-77. 13. Coming to the penalties levied by the ITO under s. 273 for the asst. years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the facts are that the assessee was a person who has not previously been assessed by way of regular asst., within the meaning of S.212(3) of the IT Act and was, accordingly, required to file a voluntary estimate of its income and to pay advance-tax in accordance with such estimate for the above two years. Such estimates should have been filed on 15th March, 1970 and 15th March, 1971 for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively. As the assessee failed to do so, the ITO initiated proceedings under s. 273 and called upon the assessee to show cause why penalties should not be levied for the above default. By its reply dated 7th Nov., 1971, the assessee brought to the notice of the ITO, the circumstances in which the returns of the income for these two years were delayed as a result of an oversight on the part of the assessee and submitted that the estimates under s. 212(3) were also not filed on account of the same mistake. It was also submitted that there was no ....