9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Act, 1961 for the above two years. 3. The assessee is a HUF of which Shri Anup N. Kothari is the Karta. The returns of income of this family for the asst. years 1970-71 and 1971-72 were due to be filed, under the provisions of s. 139(1) of the IT Act, on 30th June, 1970 and 30th June, 1971 respectively. They were actually filed on 1st July, 1971 and 10th Jan., 1972 respectively. The assessee became liable for filing a return on account of income arising to it from a property at 41, Golf Links, New Delhi, which originally belonged to Shri Anup N. Kothari as an individual and which was thrown by him into the hotchpot of the family by a declaration dated 25th March, 1969. In the earlier years, the income from this property was being declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me the property of the HUF. It was also submitted that there was no Mala fides on the part of the assessee in delaying the return and that there was no attempt at withholding the return. For the asst. year 1971-72, it was pleaded by the assessee that it was under the Bona fide impression that the returns of the individual and the HUF had to be filed simultaneously and as extension of time was taken for filing the return in the case of the individual, the assessee was under the Bona fide belief that the return of the HUF could also be filed at the time of filing the individual return. 5. The ITO rejected the above explanations given by the assessee as not satisfactory and proceeded to impose penalties of Rs. 1,840 and Rs.1,850 respectively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the expense of the Revenue by including the income of the HUF in his total income. Thus, it was nothing more than a mistake on his part. Such mistake had obviously arisen by the preparation of the return in a mechanical way as in the earlier years when the income from this property was being shown as his individual income. As soon as this mistake was discovered, he filed a revised return on 1st July, 1971 in his individual asst., excluding the income from property from his total income and he also filed a return on the same date in the case of the HUF showing the income from the property. While filing the revised return the assessee also filed a covering letter explaining the circumstance in which the mistake arose. That explanation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us the contention that the assessee was under the Bona fide belief that the return of the HUF had to be filed only along with the return of the individual. It is common ground that the assessee had not applied for any extension of time for filing of the return, though Shri Anup N. Kothari had applied for extension of time for filing his individual return. Accordingly, the learned representative of the assessee contended that as the delay in the filing of the return was due to a Bona fide belief, though wrongly held, no penalty under s. 271(1)(a) was called for. 10. On behalf of the Department, the learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and contended that the assessee as an educated perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied unless there is some indication of a contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. In the present case, we are satisfied that there was a mere oversight on the part of the assessee without any contumacious conduct attached thereto. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the penalty levied under s. 271(1) has to be cancelled. We do so. The penalty of Rs.1,840 levied for the year is, accordingly, cancelled. 12. Coming to the asst. year 1971-72, we find that the position is quite different. The return of income for this year was due on 30th June, 1971. On 1st July, 1971, the assessee had already discovered its mistake and filed the return for the asst. year 1970-71. The income of the assessee being only from the letting out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/Del./1976-77. 13. Coming to the penalties levied by the ITO under s. 273 for the asst. years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the facts are that the assessee was a person who has not previously been assessed by way of regular asst., within the meaning of S.212(3) of the IT Act and was, accordingly, required to file a voluntary estimate of its income and to pay advance-tax in accordance with such estimate for the above two years. Such estimates should have been filed on 15th March, 1970 and 15th March, 1971 for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively. As the assessee failed to do so, the ITO initiated proceedings under s. 273 and called upon the assessee to show cause why penalties should not be levied for the above default. By its reply dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
