1995 (9) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pholding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 35,569 ? " It is enough if the said question No. 1 is answered. The said question relates to the assessment year 1977-78. There was a delay of about two years and seven months on the part of the assessee in filing its income-tax return (sic) (a) of the Act as it stood then. The said provision, in the abovereferred to assessment year, stood as follows : "If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-- (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by notice given ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pay the tax on self-assessment, and on the other, of delaying the return and facing the equally onerous penal consequences of such delay ". But, in the second appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Tribunal restored the penalty levied and allowed the appeal before it on the ground, "the assessee's argument that it was restrained from filing the return because of its having to pay self-tax immediately is not a valid reason for the delay in question. It is the assessee's statutory obligation to file its income-tax return under section 139(1) which it failed to discharge. The assessee chose to file the return only after notice under section 148 had been served". Despite the argument of learned counsel for the assessee before us, it is cle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should be presumed that the Department has extended the time for filing the return till the date when it was filed. No doubt, in this regard, CIT v. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433 (SC) was relied on. But, it must be stated first of all, that from the records in the present penalty proceeding, learned counsel for the assessee could not point out that such interest payment had been made. Therefore, here also, there is absolutely no basis for his abovesaid argument. No doubt, he ventures to submit that the records relating to assessment of tax would show that such interest had been paid. But, even here, he could not assert so positively. He only makes a guess. Here again, it is indeed very strange that such an argument is made without a....