1990 (9) TMI 113 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of penalty for late submission of return.
2. Consideration of extension applications filed after the due date.
3. Interpretation of Form No. 6 and its impact on extension applications.

Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty for Late Submission of Return:
The case involved a penalty imposed for the late submission of a return, where the return was originally due on 30th June, 1982 but was filed on 30th April, 1984. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) calculated the delay and issued a show-cause notice. The assessee explained that the delay was due to the illness of a senior partner, affecting the completion of accounts. The ITO, considering the assessee a habitual defaulter, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,240. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) canceled part of the penalty but sustained it for the remaining period of 8 months, citing the failure to file Form No. 6 during that period.

2. Consideration of Extension Applications Filed After the Due Date:
The Departmental Representative argued that extension applications filed after the due date should not be considered valid. Referring to various legal precedents, the Representative contended that belated applications for extension cannot be entertained, and subsequent applications based on such belated filings are also invalid. However, the assessee's counsel relied on a previous Tribunal order where it was held that the lack of a reply to an extension application could lead the assessee to believe the extension was granted. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the previous one based on the timing of the extension requests.

3. Interpretation of Form No. 6 and Its Impact on Extension Applications:
The Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case emphasized that the absence of a reply to an extension application could reasonably lead the assessee to believe the extension was granted. The Court's ruling highlighted the importance of the wording in Form No. 6, allowing applications after the time limit expiry. It was noted that the IT Act's prescribed time limit pertains to filing the return, not the extension application. Therefore, the right of the assessee to seek an extension should not be curtailed based on the timing of the application. The judgment upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing the significance of the wording in Form No. 6 and dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the penalty for late submission, the validity of extension applications filed after the due date, and the interpretation of Form No. 6 in relation to extension requests, ultimately upholding the AAC's decision based on the legal principles and precedents discussed.