1977 (12) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch after appeal has been determined at Rs. 36,474. The assessee was, therefore, liable to file his return of income voluntarily under s. 139(1) of the IT Act on or before 30th Sept., 1969 so far as the question of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) is concerned. However, this return was filed on 21st Jan., 1971 after a delay of 15 complete months. The return was, however, filed voluntarily after the assessee was advised that his notion that he is not liable to file return voluntarily is erroneous. 3. The ITO, however, issued a show cause to the assessee why penalty need not be levied for this delay. The explanation of the assessee was that he had a bona fide belief that he was not liable to file a return voluntarily and that since his he belief w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contended that the assessee being a salaried employee had never been conscious of voluntary payment of tax and no return had been filed in the earlier years. The assessee got the contract and sufficient income was earned to make him liable to tax. However, he continued to nurse his old belief that he was not required to file the return of income voluntarily and this bona fide belief resulted in delay in submission of the return which was ultimately filed when the earlier employer of the assessee told him that he had to file the return voluntarily. As soon as the assessee realised the mistake, the return was filed and belated advance-tax was paid immediately. The assessee did not wait for the ITO either to demand the tax or to get the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, therefore, find that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay in submission of the returns as he believed bona fide that he was not required to file the return voluntarily and accordingly he neither filed the return nor took any steps to pay the tax in advance. It cannot be doubted that the assessee has committed the default but these defaults are of a venial nature and though technically the penalty provisions of law may be attracted yet the authorities imposing the penalty would be justified in not levying the penalties if there was no conscious disregard of the provisions of law. In this case there is no evidence placed on behalf of the Revenue that the defaults resulted due to conscious disregard of the provisions of law. Since th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X