2016 (11) TMI 659

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts are that a search was conducted on 4.2.2011 in the case of M/s. JIK Industries and at the premises of CMD Shri R.G. Parikh. The assessee company is a subsidiary and a group company of the JIK Industries Ltd. , therefore it was covered u/s. 153C of the Act as search documents and computer back up was found and seized in the course of search proceedings notices u/s. 153C were issued to the assessee on 30.4.2012 for filing return of income on or before 30 days for all these assessment years i.e. 2005-06 to 2011-12. The assessee filed returns with the delay of 3 to 4 months i.e. beyond the date specified in the notice issued u/s. 153C of the Act. The assessments were completed u/s. 143(3) R.W. Sec. 153C on 22.3.2012. 3.1. Since the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....turns within the specified time without any reasonable cause. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submits that there is no willful default in filing the return belatedly and the delay was occurred for the following reasons: a. Appellant were regular and prompt in filing their return of income, since inception except this stray incident, that too beyond the control of the appellant. b. Appellant and their group companies were required to file a total number of 55 returns, followed by search proceedings which necessarily required time. c. Chairman of the Group/Chief Promotor of the group was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the authorities below that: a. Appellant were regular and prompt in filing their return of income, since inception except this stray incident, that too beyond the control of the appellant. b. Appellant and their group companies were required to file a total number of 55 returns, followed by search proceedings which necessarily required time. c. Chairman of the Group/Chief Promotor of the group was unwell/sick and was not attending business regularly and had to be hospitalized twice. d. There were no willful/deliberate delay on the part of the appellant. e. Provision of Sec. 271F were not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and if it is considered to be applicable, it may be appreciated that the alleged delay was on ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of Hindustan Steel Ltd (supra) held as under: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the p....