TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal was justified in law in holding that there was no reasonable cause for delay in filing the return by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 and, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable for the entire period of delay?" 2. The appellant-assessee, a partnership firm, was a government contractor during the relevant period. Return for the assessment year 1984-85 was due and should have been filed on or before 31st July, 1984. It was belatedly filed after 23 months on 2nd July, 1986, declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,91,440/-. Self assessment tax of Rs. 89,940/- due was paid at the time of filing the return, after taking credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 42,095/-. The computation she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey were in a dilemma and that there were sufficient reasons to explain the delay in filing the return after a period of 23 months, cannot be accepted. The assessee had not filed Form No.6 seeking extension of time nor had they justified and satisfactorily explained the cause for the delay. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee submits that the facts have not been properly understood and appreciated by the Tribunal. He states that the appellant-assessee was in fact in a dilemma and did not know how to treat and claim the amount received from the DDA. He accepts that Rs. 2,93,004.13 was received from the DDA on account of the Asian Games Project in the present assessment year i.e. 1984-85 and not in the assessment year 198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilemma cannot be accepted without reference to other circumstances. Subsequently, revised return for the assessment year 1983-84 dated 1st November, 1985 declaring loss of Rs. 9,35,200/- was filed. However, the return for the assessment year 1984-85, which was due and should have been filed by 31st July, 1984, was filed only on 2nd July, 1986. This is about 9 months after the revised return for the assessment year 1983-84 was filed. This creates doubt on whether or not the revision of return for the assessment year 1983-84 had any connection and bearing with the belated return for the assessment year 1984-85. In reply to the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(a), the appellant-assessee firm had stated that they had completed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed for the assessment year 1983-84 on 29th October, 1984. If the return for the assessment year 1983-84 could have been filed, though the assessee claims that they were not sure how to treat the loss as they had not received payment from the DDA, the return for the assessment year 1984-85 could have been surely and certainly filed. This reason/cause had not prevented the appellant-assessee from filing the return for the assessment year 1983-84. We, therefore, are not inclined to accept the aforesaid reasons as a valid cause and acceptable justification for filling return for assessment year 1984-85, after a delay of 23 months. 7. Contention of the appellant-assessee that if the receipt of Rs. 2,93,004.13 stands excluded, refund was due....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Kerala Vs. Krishan Kurup Madhava Kurup, 1971 AIR Ker 211, which was approved and extracted by the Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi, [1979] 118 ITR 507 to observe that legal advice sometimes might be wrong and on pronouncements on questions of law, human errors can take place and the courts must be careful when they examine the question of competence or merits of the legal advice to rule out and segregate cases which do not have any taint of mala fides or element of recklessness or ruse. In the said case, the penalty imposed was set aside. 9. In the facts of the present case, we do not find that the appellant-assessee in the course of the reply had stated that they had taken legal advice, and coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and is imposed upon infraction of law when conditions stipulated in the provision are satisfied. Mens rea is not an requirement to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. As far as the factum that the return was delayed, the same is accepted and is not in dispute. Justification and cause for the delay is the issue in dispute. 11. Decisions in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel, [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Guj) and Viswam and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1993] 201 ITR 291 are distinguishable. In Viswam and Company (supra), the assessee had sought reference before the High Court and penalty was imposed for a period of one month only. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty for the other period. ....