2018 (11) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight Of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances Of the case. 2. The authorities below are not justified in levying the penalty Of the Act, on the mere proof Of default without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause for the failure to file the return of income under the bonafide belief and advice received from late Sri Obaiah, former deceased Accounts-in-charge Manager of the appellant Trust, that no return need be filed, the fact of which was not even doubted or disputed and consequently, the penalty levied requires to be cancelled. 3. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not filin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../2008-09 dated 20/03/2009. The r/ for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 25/03/2011 declaring 'nil' income after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Against said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 21/12/2011 passed u/s 143(3) accepting the returned income. However, AO on noticing that the appellant had not filed return of income in terms of provisions of sub-section (4A) of section 139 of the Act, had issued show cause notice dated 26/06/2013 calling upon the appellant-trust to show cause why an order imposing penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act should not be levied. In response to the said show cause notice, an explanation was filed before AO stating that the return was not f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in this regard was placed on the following decisions: i. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (118 ITR 326)(SC); ii. K.P.V.Shaik Mohammed Rowther & Co., (232 ITR 176)(Mad) iii. P.V.Devassy (84 ITR 502)(Ker) It was further submitted that it is only technical breach of law which does not warrant levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. (83 ITR 26). It is further argued that penalty can be levied only on the trustees of the appellant-trust in the capacity of the representative assessee and not on the trust itself. 5.2 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee-trust. He submitt....