9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against cancellation of penalty imposed by the ITO under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 for delayed filing of the return for the assessment year 1971-72. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna-B involved a dispute regarding the cancellation of a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) against a registered firm under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed due to the delayed filing of the return for the assessment year 1971-72. The firm had initially filed an application seeking an extension of time, which was supported by a receipt dated 27th September 1971. However, the ITO did not consider the application for extension as it was not placed on record, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings by the ITO. The ITO concluded that the firm failed to provide any explanation for the delay and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,580. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (AAC) accepted the firm's contention that they had applied for an extension of time until 31st January 1972, and the return was filed by that date. The AAC noted that the petition for extension was not on record but acknowledged the receipt provided by the firm as evidence of the application. The AAC held that the firm had a bona fide belief that the extension of time had been allowed, thus canceling the penalty imposed by the ITO. The Department, aggrieved by the AAC's decision, filed an appeal challenging the cancellation of the penalty. The firm, represented by its counsel, presented the receipt for the extension application and argued that the delay was due to the Accountant being on leave during floods, affecting the finalization of accounts. The counsel contended that the firm had a reasonable cause for the delay and had a genuine belief that the extension had been granted, citing a decision by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal regarding compliance with statutory provisions. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, held that the firm had a reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the return. It emphasized that the ITO's failure to communicate the rejection of the extension application led the firm to believe in good faith that the extension had been granted. The Tribunal referenced a case law to support the principle that an unreplied extension request could create a reasonable belief in the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to cancel the penalty imposed by the ITO, dismissing the Department's appeal.
|
