1978 (2) TMI 132 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for Assessment Year 1970-71.
2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for Assessment Year 1971-72.
3. Penalty under Section 273 for Assessment Year 1970-71.
4. Penalty under Section 273 for Assessment Year 1971-72.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for Assessment Year 1970-71:

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) with Shri Anup N. Kothari as the Karta, filed its income return late for the assessment year 1970-71. The return, due on 30th June 1970, was filed on 1st July 1971. The delay was attributed to an oversight where the income from property, originally belonging to Shri Anup N. Kothari and thrown into the family hotchpot on 25th March 1969, was mistakenly included in his individual return. Upon realizing the mistake, a revised return was filed on 1st July 1971. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,840, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). However, the Tribunal found that the delay was due to a bona fide mistake without any contumacious conduct, referencing the Supreme Court's observation in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for Assessment Year 1971-72:

For the assessment year 1971-72, the return due on 30th June 1971 was filed on 10th November 1972. The assessee claimed a bona fide belief that the HUF return could be filed along with the individual return. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had already discovered the mistake by 1st July 1971 and should have filed the return on time. The plea of simultaneous filing was found to be baseless as the HUF and individual are separate entities. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1,850 imposed by the ITO and upheld by the AAC, dismissing the appeal.

3. Penalty under Section 273 for Assessment Year 1970-71:

The assessee failed to file a voluntary estimate of income and pay advance tax for the assessment year 1970-71 by the due date of 15th March 1970. The delay was again attributed to the oversight in filing separate returns for the HUF. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 577, which was confirmed by the AAC. The Tribunal, considering the oversight as non-wilful and non-contumacious, cancelled the penalty.

4. Penalty under Section 273 for Assessment Year 1971-72:

Similarly, for the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee failed to file the estimate by 15th March 1971. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,300, confirmed by the AAC. The Tribunal found that the failure was due to the same oversight as in the previous year and not due to any wilful conduct. Hence, the penalty was cancelled.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for ITA Nos. 3072, 3074, and 3075/Del/1976-77, cancelling the penalties under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273 for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, except for the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for the assessment year 1971-72 (ITA No. 3073/Del/1976-77), which was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

← Previous Next →