TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 31-3-1972 31-3-1973 Notice under section 148 of the Act served on 27-9-1976 30-3-1977 Return under section 148 could be filed Within 35 days of the receipt of notice under section 148 Return filed on 16-10-1976 10-6-1977 Delay in filing the return under section 139(1) 87 months &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ival contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to state certain facts which could be gathered from the material placed before us. (a) The assessee was a confirming party in respect of the sale of land (Bungalow No. 14) by Shri J. K. Samstha Khadayat Chhatralaya (the Chhatralaya) to Yoginager Co-operative Housing Society (the Society), in two documents registered on 26-10-1967 and 4-12-1967. (b) The assessee received certain commission from the society during the relevant years as well as in the assessment year 1971-72. (c) As the transaction took palace during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, the ITO was of the view that the assessee ought to have filed its returns of income for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 as contemplated under section 139(1). Since the assessee has not done so, the ITO issued notices under section 148 calling upon the assessee to file its returns of income for these years. In pursuant to the said.notices, the assessee filed the returns of income of income within the time prescribed in the said notices issued under section 148. (d) The assessee declared total income of Rs. 1,29,672 for the assessment year 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 8,450 --------- 1,38,130 &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of Rs. 4,263 in the second year under appeal. 6. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee vehemently argued that no the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, it has reasonable cause for not filing the return on or before the due date as contemplated under section 139(1). Reliance was placed on various reported decisions which are noted in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). As he had given certain relief to the assessee in the quantum matter for the assessment year 1969-70, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the ITO to redetermine the quantum of penalty impossible under section 271(1) (a). However, in respect of the assessment year 1970-71, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of the ITO. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission which were made before the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that as they very existence of the assessee receiving the commissioner from the society was in jeopardy, the assessee has reasonable cause for not filing the return on o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its returns of income. He further submitted that when the assessee was caught in the net of the provisions of the Act, he took up a plea about the litigation between the society and the other parties to which it has nothing to do. In other words, the learned representative for the department wanted to impress upon the Tribunal that the assessee had no bona fide belief of not filing its returns of income on or before the due date. He also submitted that since the assessee was a confirming party in respect of Bungalow No. 14 for which it has received commission from the society, it was under an obligation to file its returns of income on or before the due date. Inviting the attention of the Tribunal to the order of the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals), it was highlighted that not only the assessee was not a party to the said litigation but there is not a whisper of the assessee's name in the entire order of the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals). He further submitted that the assessee has not brought any evidence on record to show that the society has demanded the refund of the commission received from it, even till to-date, which clearly shows that the assessee had raised the boge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount to the ITO granting extension of time beyond the limit prescribed under the statute. In other words, he wanted to impress upon the Tribunal that the assessees cannot derive any benefit from the decision in the cases of M. Chandra Sekhar and Liberal Engg. Works. Relying on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330, the learned representative for the department submitted that since the default committed by he assessee was continuing default, the income-tax authorities were fully justified in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(a), in the manner they did. 8.2 Alternatively, the learned representative for the department submitted that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the decision in the case of M. Chandra Sekhar would be applicable in the instant case, the assessee would still be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(a) in respect of the period beyond 31-3-1972 in the first year and 31-3-1973 in the second year under appeal till the date of filing the returns, viz., 16-10-1976 and 10-6-1977, respectively. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and we find considerable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 1960-61 30-6-1960 31-3-1965 2-8-1963 1961-62 30-6-1961 31-3-1966 2-8-1963 1962-63 30-6-1962 31-3-1967 2-8-1963 1963-64 30-6-1963 ....