TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (5) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the circumstances of the case, when interest under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 139(1) was charged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) is legal ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, when the assessee had filed the return of income within the time allowed under the provisions of section 139(4), the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) was legal ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the departmental authorities had not found that the assessee's conduct was contumacious in delaying the filing of the return, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) was legal?" The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of " M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal to the Tribunal. At the hearing of the appeal, no attempt was made on behalf of the assessee-firm to explain the delay in filing the return on the ground of existence of reasonable cause. The main contention on behalf of the assessee-firm before the Tribunal appears to have been that the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) was illegal and invalid because the same was in addition to the recovery of interest under sub-cl. (iii) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of section 139 of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention. This has led to the making of the present reference by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee-firm to answer the aforesaid questions. The aforesaid third question may be disposed of at the very out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39 for the same act of delay in filing the return, amounts to double penalty and is, therefore, unlawful. This contention has no merit and is concluded against the assessee by authoritative decisions. It is settled that one and the same act may give rise to more than one liability or obligation under different provisions of law and the adverse consequences so resulting cannot be challenged on the ground that more than one adverse consequence cannot result from one act. Same is the position here. We may refer only to a recent decision of this court in Todarmal Safarishmal Lashkar v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 759 (MP) wherein, while rejecting a similar argument, the Division Bench stated as under (p. 765): " Adverting now to the second contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....now is question No. (2). The answer to this question must also be given in favour of the department and against the assessee. Sub-s. (4) of s. 139, as it existed at the relevant time up to 1st April, 1968, read as under: " (4) Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may, before the assessment is made, furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of four assessment years from the end of the assessment year to which the return relates and the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply in every such case." It is clear that even in the case of a return filed within the time allowed under sub-s. (4) of s. 139, ....