1981 (8) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Existence of reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income till 14th November 1966.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat addressed the validity of canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1966-67. The case involved a delay in filing the return, leading to penalty proceedings against the assessee. The Tribunal considered two key questions: firstly, whether the Tribunal was correct in canceling the penalty order, and secondly, if there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return until 14th November 1966.

The assessee submitted an explanation stating that they believed the time for filing the return was extended due to an application made on June 29, 1966, and a notice received on October 14, 1966. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this explanation, leading to an appeal. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal overturned the penalty order. The Tribunal believed that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, as they genuinely believed the return could be filed within thirty days of receiving the notice under section 139(2).

The High Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Addl. CIT v. 1. M. Patel and Co., emphasizing that penalty for failing to file the return on time requires proof of deliberate defiance of the law or contumacious conduct. The legal burden rests on the Department to establish a lack of reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal's decision was based on the material provided by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice, justifying the delay until November 14, 1966.

The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. The Tribunal's view that each period of default was less than one month and therefore did not warrant a penalty was upheld. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue on both questions raised.

In conclusion, the High Court found in favor of the assessee on both issues, confirming the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty. No costs were awarded due to the absence of representation by the assessee during the hearing.