9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 for delay in filing return. - Reasonable cause for not filing the return within the stipulated time. - Applicability of case law in determining reasonable cause. - Departmental appeal against the order of the AAC deleting the penalty. Analysis: 1. The case involved a departmental appeal against the order of the AAC deleting a penalty of Rs. 4,290 imposed by the ITO under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The respondent, assessed as an individual for the 1968-69 assessment year, had income from house property but delayed filing the return voluntarily, leading to the penalty imposition by the ITO. 2. The respondent contended that the delay in filing the return was due to not receiving necessary information about the share of profit from a firm in which he was a partner. The AAC allowed the appeal, citing a Tribunal decision that delay in filing the return by the firm could be a reasonable cause for the partner's delay. The ITO appealed this decision before the Tribunal. 3. The Revenue argued that the respondent could have applied for an extension of time but failed to do so, and hence the penalty should not have been cancelled by the AAC. However, the respondent explained that he filed his personal return as soon as the firm filed its return and he knew his share of income. The AAC's decision was supported by the respondent's argument and the penalty imposed on the firm for the same default. 4. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's argument, stating that the penalty was imposed based on the opinion that there was no reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that the lack of an application for an extension of time was not material in this case. The Tribunal also referred to legal precedents emphasizing the need for the Department to prove deliberate violation of law to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(a). 5. The Tribunal concluded that as the firm did not close its accounts and file its return on time, the respondent had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing his return. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to delete the penalty, stating that the Department failed to provide evidence of deliberate violation by the respondent. The departmental appeal was dismissed, affirming the AAC's decision. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision to dismiss the departmental appeal.
|
