2011 (7) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 2000-01, the petitioner should have filed audit report before the assessing authority on or before 31.10.2000. The petitioner filed the same only on 29.6.2001. Therefore, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act for levying penalty for delay in filing of the auditors' report. The petitioner filed an explanation thus: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 44,831/- on the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was also dismissed by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner challenges Exts.Pl and P2 orders. The contention of the petitioner is that imposition of penalty is not automatic, and that the imposition of penalty being quasi criminal in nature, it could have b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; "CIT v. Sankarsons & Co. [1972] 85 ITR 627 (Ker.), Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 745 and P.P. Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income Tax And Sales Tax, Mattancherry [1992] 85 STC 337)" 2. The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department opposes the contention of the petitioner. According to him, the initial burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... considered the rival contentions in detail. It is not disputed before me that except the assertion in the reply to the notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has not produced any evidence whatsoever as proof of the averments. If pleadings are to be accepted on face value, then it will have disastrous results, insofar as persons with imagination would come up with many such explanations. ....