TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (4) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder s. 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " Brief facts are as follows : The case relates to the assessment year 1966-67. The filing of the return by the assessee was due by September 30, 1966. Notice under s. 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act "), was sent by registered post on April 28, 1966. According to the stand of the Revenue, the notice is supposed to have been served by May 4, 1966. The assessee filed its first return on November 8, 1966, which was signed by its accountant, Shri K.T. Doshi. On being pointed out this defect in the course of the assessment proceeding, another return under the signature of a partner of the firm was filed on August 6, 1968. As no valid return was filed till....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the order of the Income-tax Officer in upholding his action for levying the minimum penalty but we restrict the period to one month only. The penalty should be levied according to law, after taking into account the income finally determined in quantum to this extent only the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that year is reversed." Thus, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the default was of one month only and the Tribunal accordingly confirmed the order of the ITO for the levy of penalty to the extent of one month only. A copy of the order of the Tribunal has been marked annex. C to the statement of case. Learned senior standing counsel for the Department has firstly submitted that the return filed by the assessee on Nov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessments were made on the basis of such returns filed. The AAC has taken notice of another instance from the record that the return on behalf of the appellant-firm, on another occasion, was filed by an accountant, Shri P. N. Lal, and the assessing officer even on that occasion did not raise any objection against the return so filed and completed the assessment on the basis of that return which was not signed by any partner. In my opinion, on the facts available on the record before the Department, it was clear that the assessee was induced to believe that the return filed by the assessee signed by the accountant on behalf of the firm was a valid return and, as such, the assessee was under a genuine and bona fide belief that the return so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. The stand taken by the Department before the Tribunal is quoted as below : " It was stated by the departmental representative that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not correct in deleting the penalty......... According to him, there was no explanation of the assessee for filing the original return in the assessment year 1966-67 which admittedly was delayed by one month and eleven days even if we ignore the filing of the second return duly signed by the partners of the firm. It was stated that in any case for this year the penalty for the period of full one month should have been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner." From this, it is obvious that the return filed by the assessee was treated by the De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wilful neglect or the mens rea on the part of the assessee. In my opinion, on my findings as above, the assessee has shown reasonable cause and it cannot be said that it is not a reasonable cause, because it is not a sufficient cause. Learned senior standing counsel for the Department, in support of his submission, has relied upon the case of Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal [1950] 18 ITR 569 (SC). But, in my opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, the case relied upon is not attracted on the statement of fact submitted by the Department, nor does it arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Thus, in my opinion, the first submission advanced on behalf of the Department fails. This takes me to t....