9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 for late filing of income tax returns. - Reasonable cause for the delay in filing returns. - Negligence on the part of the counsel of the assessee. - Burden of responsibility for filing returns. Analysis: 1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(a): - The appeals were filed against the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 for late filing of income tax returns for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. - The assessee contended that the delay was due to negligence on the part of their counsel, while the Departmental Representative argued that the penalty was correctly imposed as the assessee also had a responsibility in filing the returns. - The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting that no evidence was presented to support the claim of counsel negligence, and the burden of responsibility for filing returns cannot be entirely shifted to the counsel. 2. Reasonable Cause for Delay: - The assessee argued that the delay in filing the returns was due to a reasonable cause, citing cases where penalties were deleted due to valid reasons. - However, the Tribunal found that no concrete evidence was provided to prove the negligence of the counsel or any valid reason for the delay, leading to the rejection of the explanation offered by the assessee as a reasonable cause. 3. Negligence of Counsel: - The case cited by the assessee regarding the belief that the counsel had filed the return was deemed irrelevant as no evidence was presented to prove the negligence of the counsel. - The Tribunal emphasized that active participation from the assessee is required in the filing of returns, and the burden cannot be solely placed on the counsel without any supporting evidence. 4. Burden of Responsibility: - The Tribunal highlighted that the filing of returns necessitates the active involvement of the assessee, and the entire responsibility cannot be shifted to the counsel. - Lack of evidence, such as correspondence or affidavits, to support the claims of negligence or valid reasons for the delay further weakened the assessee's case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. 5. Fair Opportunity to Adduce Evidence: - The assessee's challenge regarding not being granted a fair opportunity to adduce evidence was rejected as no evidence was presented even during the proceedings, indicating a lack of effort to support the claims made. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) due to the lack of concrete evidence supporting the reasons for the delay in filing the returns and the negligence of the counsel. The appeals were dismissed as the explanations offered were not considered reasonable causes for the delay, and the burden of responsibility for timely filing of returns was emphasized to be shared between the assessee and their counsel.
|
