1983 (7) TMI 110 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty u/s 271 (1) (a) for belated submission of return for asst. yr. 1976-77.

Detailed Analysis:
The individual appellant filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the ITO for the delayed submission of the return for the assessment year 1976-77. The appellant's representative explained that the delay was due to the appellant's ill health, which significantly impacted his ability to file the return within the prescribed period. The representative highlighted that despite the appellant's efforts to seek extensions, the return was ultimately filed on 6th May 1978, well beyond the due date of 30th June 1976. The appellant's advocate argued that the delay was a result of the appellant's deteriorating health condition throughout 1977, which led to the delayed instructions for filing the return. Despite the appellant paying the tax on the returned income on 16th January 1978, the actual filing was delayed due to oversight by the representative, who eventually submitted the return on 6th May 1978.

Upon appeal to the AAC, the appellant's representative reiterated the reasons for the delay, emphasizing the appellant's continuous health issues and the subsequent impact on the filing process. The AAC acknowledged the initial extension sought by the appellant until 30th September 1976 but deemed the subsequent delay unjustified from October 1976 to May 1978. Consequently, the penalty was reduced based on this assessment.

In the subsequent appeal, the appellant's advocate argued that similar penalties imposed on other partners of the appellant's employer firm, M/s K. Aminuddin & Sons, for the same assessment year were canceled by the Tribunal due to the illness of the accountant. Drawing a parallel, the advocate contended that the appellant's case, being the accountant himself, warranted similar consideration for the delay caused by his illness. The department, represented by Shri Shyamlal, relied on the AAC's decision.

After considering the arguments and records presented by both parties, the ITAT found in favor of the appellant. The tribunal noted that the illness of the appellant, similar to the partners of M/s K. Aminuddin & Sons, constituted a reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the return. Drawing a logical inference from previous tribunal decisions, the ITAT allowed the appeal, overturning the AAC's decision and canceling the penalty imposed by the ITO.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment highlighted the significance of the appellant's illness as a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, aligning with previous decisions regarding similar circumstances. The tribunal's decision to allow the appeal emphasized consistency in applying the concept of reasonable cause for delayed submissions, ultimately relieving the appellant of the imposed penalty.