9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for belated filing of income-tax return. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Burden of proof on the assessee to prove sufficient cause for not filing the return in time. 4. Tribunal's reliance on the assessee's argument without referring to facts. 5. Whether delay in auditing the accounts of the firm justifies the delay in filing the return. 6. Remittance of the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference arising from a penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the belated filing of an income-tax return. The penalty was initially sustained in the first appeal but was reversed by the Tribunal based on the assessee's argument that the delay in filing the return was due to the delay in auditing the accounts of the firm, constituting sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal's decision led to a reference to the High Court to determine whether the cancellation of the penalty was justified. The High Court heard arguments from both the Revenue and the assessee's counsel. The Revenue contended that the burden of proof lay on the assessee to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the return, which had not been adequately discharged. It was argued that the Tribunal had not considered relevant facts or decided the case properly. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel maintained that the delay was due to the accounts of the firm not being finalized, citing a relevant decision in support of this argument. Upon reviewing the Tribunal's order, the High Court observed that the Tribunal had merely relied on the assessee's argument without delving into the facts. It emphasized that it was the assessee's responsibility to demonstrate the delay in finalizing the firm's accounts as the reason for not filing the return on time. The Court noted that the Tribunal had failed to consider these crucial facts. The Revenue's counsel argued that the delay in auditing the firm's accounts could not justify the delay in filing the return if it was attributable to the assessee's lack of interest in timely auditing. The Court highlighted that if the delay in auditing was the assessee's responsibility, then the assessee had no defense against the penalty. Given the necessity for a factual finding by the Tribunal, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Tribunal was instructed to consider various factors, including the assessee's role in the firm, any delays attributable to the assessee in auditing the firm's accounts, the dates of finalizing the accounts, and any subsequent delays in filing the return post-audit. Consequently, the High Court declined to answer the reference due to the remand for further examination.
|
