1979 (2) TMI 156 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 for assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). The penalties were imposed due to delays in filing returns for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The ITO imposed penalties of 2% per month subject to 50% of the tax amount. The AAC initially cancelled the penalties based on the submission that the penalties were imposed on the basis of duplicate returns. However, the Department challenged the authenticity of the receipts before the Tribunal, leading to a reconsideration of the matter by the AAC.

The AAC, upon reevaluation, concluded that the assessee did not actually file the returns and that the receipts were obtained without filing the returns. The assessee contended that the returns were filed on time, producing receipts as evidence. A Handwriting Expert's report supported the authenticity of the receipts. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Receipt Register and the absence of the Receipt Clerk on the date one of the receipts was issued, casting doubt on their genuineness.

For the assessment year 1968-69, the Tribunal determined that the return was filed on time based on evidence and attendance records of the Receipt Clerk. However, for the assessment year 1969-70, discrepancies in the Receipt Clerk's presence on the date of receipt issuance led to the conclusion that the return was not filed on time. The Tribunal upheld the penalty for the assessment year 1969-70 but cancelled it for the assessment year 1968-69. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of each year and the authenticity of the receipts presented.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the genuineness of documents and the need for evidence to support claims of timely filing. The decision highlighted the significance of assessing each case based on its individual merits and the credibility of the evidence presented. Ultimately, one appeal was allowed, and the other was dismissed based on the findings regarding the filing of returns for the respective assessment years.