9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sst. yrs. On 14th March, 1972 and thus there was delay of 44 months and 32 months in the two asst. yrs respectively. The tax payable in the two asst. yrs was Rs. 8,639 and Rs. 9,360. The ITO imposed penalties at the rate of 2 per cent per month subject to 50 per cent of the tax and thus imposed penalties of Rs. 4,320 and Rs. 4,680 against the assessee under s. 271(1)(a) of the said Act in the asst. yrs 1968-69 and 1969-70 respectively. 3. It appears that originally the assessee had filed appeal before the AAC and before the AAC it was submitted that the penalties were imposed on the basis of duplicate returns filed by the assessee. It was pointed out to the then AAC that the assessee filed original returns almost within the specified time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the two receipts produced by the assessee were not genuine. It was contended before the AAC that no entry in respect of the receipt of the two returns is to be found in the Receipt Register. The ITO pleaded before the AAC that both the receipts were issued by the same Receipt Clerk Shri Rajendra Prasad. It was also pointed out that on 17th June, 1969 when the receipt for the asst. yr. 1969-70 had been issued, Shri Rajendra Prasad was on earned leave and so no receipt could have been issued by him on 17th June, 1969. The ITO submitted before the AAC that the assessee has in connivance with the Receipt Clerk procured the receipts without filing the returns of income. 6. The AAC held that the assessee never furnished the returns of income cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Handwriting Expert Hassan Raza along with admitted documents marked 'X' and 'XI'. He marked the two receipts as 'A' and 'AI'. His report is dt. 4th Feb., 1978 which shows that he scientifically examined and compared the photo of the writings and initial marked 'A' and 'AI' with the photo of the writings and initial marked 'X' and 'XI' by him and for the detailed reasons given by him he was held that the writings and initial marked 'A' and 'AI' are written by one and the same person who wrote the writings and initial marked 'X' and 'XI'. In view of the report of the Handwriting Expert we hold that the receipts dt. 18th July, 1968 and 17th June, 1969 were granted by Shri Rajendra Prasad who was the Receipt Clerk. 10. Now as regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the circumstances the Tribunal held that the return had been filed by the assessee in due time and cancelled the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(a) of the said Act. 12. The learned counsel for the assessee has also filed a copy of the order of the AAC, Jamshedpur in Appeal No. 613/SB/71-72 dt. 7th Sept., 1972 relating to the asst. yr. 1968-69 in the case of another assessee where also the original return was not traceable but the AAC on the basis of the materials held that the return had been filed by the assessee. However, these documents can only show that even if the return is filed by the assessee, the return may not be traceable. 13. The assessee also filed an affidavit of Ram Ratan Lodha, a partner of the assessee firm, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, 1971 and 30th Sept., 1972 and so the filing of these returns clearly goes to show that the return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 must have been filed on 17th June, 1969 as alleged by the assessee as the return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 must have been filed on 17th June, 1969 before the filing of the return in the asst. yr. 1970-71 on 3rd July, 1970. 17. However, in view of the special circumstances relating to the asst. yr. 1969-70 we have to hold that the return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 was not filed on 17th June, 1969. The receipt granted by Shri Rajendra Prasad for the filing of the return in the asst. yr. 1969-70 is signed on 17th June, 1969. We have perused the Attendance Register for June, 1969 maintained by the IT Department whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt cannot be held to be a genuine receipt. Of course we have to hold that the receipt dt. 17th June, 1969 has been signed by Shri Rajendra Prasad We cannot accept the genuineness of the receipt. 18. When the assessee can go to any length to obtain an ante-dated receipt by Shri Rajendra Prasad, we cannot accept the affidavit also that the return was filed on 17th June, 1969. Under such circumstances we hold that the assessee did not file the return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 on 17th June, 1969 as alleged and the receipt dt. 17th June, 1969 is not reliable receipt and so we hold that the ITO was justified in holding that the return was filed on 14th March, 1972 after a delay of 32 months. We, therefore, uphold the penalty of Rs. 4,680 levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
