1975 (9) TMI 37 - HC - Income Tax

Burden Of Proof Delay In Filing Return Income Tax Act Liability To Penalty Sales Tax Authorities

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 based on delayed filing of returns by the assessee.

Analysis:
The High Court of Orissa was presented with a case referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the justification of deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The assessee, a firm, had filed returns for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66 on December 27, 1966, instead of the due dates in June of the respective years. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings due to the delay in filing the returns.

The assessee explained that their books of account were seized by the sales tax authorities and were only returned in October 1964, after which they promptly filed the returns. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not find this explanation sufficient, stating that there was no practical difficulty in preparing the necessary accounts even with the earlier seizure of records. The Tribunal, on the other hand, considered the extensive work required to finalize the accounts after the return of the seized books and found in favor of the assessee, leading to the deletion of penalties.

The High Court acknowledged that the legal burden of showing reasonable cause for the delay rested on the assessee, not the revenue. While disagreeing with the Tribunal on the legal aspect, the Court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding that the delay was adequately explained by the assessee due to the substantial accounting work involved after the return of the seized books. The Court emphasized that the determination of a reasonable time for settling accounts in such circumstances is a question of fact, and the Tribunal's decision on this matter should not be challenged merely on legal grounds.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(a) based on the factual findings, even though the legal reasoning was deemed incorrect. The Court directed each party to bear their own costs, with both judges concurring with the judgment.