TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (2) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing the ex-zamindar of Jeypore in the district of Koraput. Under the provisions of s. 14(1) of the Act, returns should have been filed on or before September 30, 1967, September 30, 1968 and September 30, 1969, for the corresponding assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively. When the assessee did not file returns the WTO served notices under s. 17 of the Act in July, 1972, for the three years under consideration. Returns became due in August, 1972, but the assessee actually filed the returns for all the three years on September 13, 1972. The WTO was of the opinion that the assessee had committed default and started proceedings for penalising him under s, 18(1) of the Act. When notices were issued, the assessee took the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us avoidance of the statutory obligation. The AAC did not dispute the plea of illness, but found that the power-of-attorney-holder and the employees were negligent in fulfilling the statutory requirements and the consequences of their negligence bad to be suffered by the assessee. He concluded that the assessee was liable to penalty but reduced the quantum to the basic minimum in terms of the law as it stood at the relevant time. As a result of the appellate Order for the first two years the penalty amounts stood at Rs. 7,63,000 and Rs. 6,51,263 respectively. There was no reduction in the last year's penalty amount. In second appeals by the assessee, the stand taken before the WTO and the appellate authority was reiterated. It was emphatic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned the facts of the case, it came to a categorical finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing his returns within the prescribed time limit. It further found that the assessee was entitled to refunds after adjustment of wealth-tax liability for the three years under consideration and, therefore, there could be no motive for avoiding payment of tax by delaying, the filing of returns. It accepted the position that the assessee did not know that there was default in the filing of the returns until the notice came. For similar defaults under the I.T. Act, no penalty had been levied and the assessee's stand was apparently accepted. The fact that all the three returns were simultaneously filed soon after the notices u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, no support is available from the ratio of the Patna decision for wiping out the penalty. The real question for consideration is whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in furnishing the returns for the three years. As was pointed out by the judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of CIT v. Laxminarain Badridas [1937] 5 ITR 170, at p. 179 : " If the assessment in this case was made by the officer to the best of his judgment, it must stand unless the assessee succeeded in satisfying the officer that he had not a reasonable opportunity to comply or was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the terms of the notice under s. 22(4) requiring him to produce or cause to be produced his accounts for three....