1992 (11) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter curing the infirmity noticed by the Tribunal ?" This reference pertains to two assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70. The assessee had filed his returns late. The return for the assessment year 1967-68 was filed on May 7, 1968, and for the assessment year 1969-70, it was filed on March 7, 1972. As there was delay in filing the returns, show-cause notices were issued to the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192, the Income-tax Officer held that the penalty leviable was nil for both those years. After these orders were passed by the Income-tax Officer, section 271(1)(a) was amended retrospectively, i.e., from April 1, 1962....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....14 [FB]. That decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal must be held to be bad in law. In the case of Addl. CIT v. I. M. Patel and Co. [1992] 196 ITR 297, the Supreme Court has held that there is nothing in section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires that mens rea has to be established by the Department before penalty can be levied under that section for delay in filing the return. It is for the assessee, should he file a belated return, to show "reasonable cause" for the delay. Therefore, it will have to be held that the Tribunal was not right in striking down the impugned orders of penalty passed by the Income-tax Officer. It was, however, urged by learned counsel for t....