9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a penalty of Rs. 2,313 against the assessee under s. 271 (1) (a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), relating to the asst. yr. 1976-77. 2. The assessee firm was required to file return under s. 139(1) of the said Act on or before 31st July, 1976 but the return was filed on 5th August, 1977 and so the ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 313 against the assessee under s. 271 (1) (a) of the said Act which was confirmed by the AAC. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AAC the assessee has filed the present appeal on the ground that the delay was as the accounts of the firm could not be made ready due to difference in trial balance. The assessee has also pleaded that the assessee firm deposited advance tax for the asst. yr. 1976- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to a refund. 6. Under such circumstances we have only to see whether there was reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the return. When the ITO held that there was reasonable cause till 31st Oct., 1976 as the accounts of the firm were not ready due to difference in trial balance then some ground persisted due to which the return was filed on 5th Aug., 1977. The ITO is probably under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. It is not necessary that unless Form No. 6 is filed no reasonable cause can be held. The assessee can prove the existence of reasonable cause without filing Form No. 6. We, therefore, hold that the delay was due to reasonable cause. We, therefore, cancel the penalty order of the ITO. The penalty, if realised, will be refunded to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in full. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
