9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. This amount was taxed in the assessment for asst. yr. 1962-63. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded by order dt. 27th May, 1965 granted additional compensation of Rs. 80,454 and further granted interest of Rs. 44,405 for period from 26th Aug., 1955 to 27th Feb., 1965. Thus total additional amount receivable came to Rs. 1,24,859. The High Court, by order dt 24th Sept., 1974 reduced the additional compensation to Rs. 54,782 and interest to Rs. 32,930. 4. In the return for asst. yr. 1966-67, the assessee had shown proportionate interest for the year. In the original assessment order dt. 31st Jan., 1971, the ITO included Rs. 1,600 being proportionate interest for the year out of total interest of Rs. 44,405 awarded by Civil Judge. He o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration was pending before the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings be stayed. This plea was rejected and it no longer survives since subsequently the quantum appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order dt. 14th Sept., 1987. 8. The other pleas raised by assessee were that the firm stood dissolved in 1967 and some of the partners had died and hence the surviving partner was handicapped in filing the return, particularly because the papers were also not traceable. It was further submitted that two views were possible on the question as to in which year the interest was assessable and the assessee was in confused state of mind because of contradictory views expressed by ITO and AAC. It was further pleaded that assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rived from decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT vs. Sultan Ali (1988) 73 CTR (AP) 15 : (1988) 174 ITR 249 (AP). 11. We have considered the rival submissions. Provisions regarding penalty are generally attracted in respect of contumacious or fraudulent assessees. The penalty is not an additional tax, though the amount is payable over and above the amount representing tax. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that even where minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty would be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach and the breach follows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Tribunal when notice under s. 148 was received. The assessee was not sure as to whether the interest was assessable in 1966-67 is held by AAC or in 1962-63, as contended by department or was assessable in the several years to which it pertained. It was, therefore, natural for the assessee to wait for the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal for asst. yr. 1962-63. 13. The assessee waited till such decision which was rendered on 3rd Jan., 1979 and within few days of receipt of that order filed the return. Facts as they existed at the relevant time constituted reasonable cause for delay in filing of return. As already stated, in reassessment no investigation was required to be made. Effect was to be given to order of AAC in appeal f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
