9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Justification of setting aside the penalty by the Tribunal. 2. Evidence of late receipt of sale statements from branches. 3. Evidence of illness of the assessee's munim. 4. Correctness of rejecting the Department's appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: Justification of setting aside the penalty by the Tribunal The case involved the delay in filing the return by M/s. New Friends & Co., Jaipur. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was challenged by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner partially condoned the delay, citing the illness of the assessee's munim as a reasonable cause. Both the Department and the assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the explanation provided by the assessee, stating that the delay was due to the late receipt of sales statements from branches and the illness of the munim. The Tribunal found the conduct of the assessee to be non-contumacious and honest, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeal and setting aside of the penalty. Issue 2: Evidence of late receipt of sale statements from branches The Tribunal considered the explanation given by the assessee regarding the delay in filing the return. It acknowledged that the delay was caused by the late receipt of sales statements from branches, which affected the completion of accounts. The Tribunal found this explanation reasonable and a valid ground for the delay, leading to the decision to set aside the penalty. Issue 3: Evidence of illness of the assessee's munim The Tribunal also took into account the illness of the assessee's munim, who was responsible for preparing accounts. Due to the munim's illness, the accounts could not be completed on time, contributing to the delay in filing the return. This factor was considered by the Tribunal as a reasonable cause for the delay, further supporting the decision to set aside the penalty. Issue 4: Correctness of rejecting the Department's appeal The Department's appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision was based on the argument that there was insufficient material to support the finding of reasonable cause for the delay. However, the court held that the Tribunal's decision was based on grounds and material present in the record. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's explanation and exercise of discretion in condoning the delay constituted a factual finding, not giving rise to a legal question. Citing precedents, the court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty was a pure finding of fact, and no legal issue arose from it. In conclusion, the court rejected the reference application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, affirming the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty due to reasonable causes for the delay in filing the return by the assessee.
|
