9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (6) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessee s accounting year ended on 31st March, 1968, the voluntary return under s. 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was due to be filed by 30th Sept., 1968. The return as, however, actually filed on19th May, 1970showing income of Rs. 36,011. As there was delay of about 19 months in filing the return voluntarily, the ITO was of the opinion that the assessee had, without reasonable cause filed to file the return within issued a show cause notice requiring the assessee to show cause why penalty be not imposed on him for not filing the return in time. The ITO has mentioned that show cause notice was duly served on the assessee fixing the hearing on3rd April, 1971but there was no compliance. Another notice was issued on10th Oct., 1972fixing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of share income from the firm, the assessee could not file a legally valid return and if he chose to file such a return he ran the risk of being imposed a penalty for concealment of particulars of income. Following the said decision of the Tribunal, the AAC has allowed the assessee s appeal holding that in the instant case the share income from the firm of Bajrang Lal Bhagwan Das could not be ascertained, the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay of 19 months in filing the return. It is against this decision of the AAC that the ITO has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In appeal before the Tribunal, it has been stated on behalf of the Revenue that inspite of two opportunities given, the assessee did not give any explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue raised by the Departmental Representative is not at all material for deciding the controversy before me. Out of the total income of Rs. 39,067 assessed on the assessee, the share income from Bajrang Lal Bhagwan Das alone amounted to Rs. 24,941. As the said firm did not close its books of accounts and file its return prior to 19th May, 1970, it was not possible for the assessee to file his personal return and hence I am of the opinion that the AAC was right in holding that the assessee had reasonable cause for not furnishing his return voluntarily in time under s. 139(1) of the Act. Following the ration of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC), the Kerala High Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
