9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the assessment year 1983-84 are liable to be cancelled - the delay was sufficiently explained and there was no reason to impose the penalty – the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue. - Writ Petition No 5682 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2013 - KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND ROHINI MS. G., JJ. JUDGEMENT K. J. Sengupta C. J.- This batch of appeals are taken up for hearing altogether, as the facts and points of law involved are common. The appeals were admitted on the substantial questions of law before this court and the same were not spelt out in the orders dated July 24, 2000, July 24, 2000, October 23, 2000, and October 20, 2000. At the time of hearing, we thought it fit that the appeals should be he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of penalty was deleted. The learned counsel for the appellant, though admitted that there was a delay in filing the returns, contended that the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer was justified and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also affirmed it, and, therefore there is no justification for the Tribunal to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in these cases there is no delay in filing the returns at all. As, originally, the assessees, in the status of a firm itself filed the returns disclosing the income from the business and in the returns it was found that the compensation amount received on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties, the only question is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) or section 271(1)(c) of the Act was justified or not. The learned Tribunal on an analysis of fact found that there was no justification for levying penalty. We record the relevant portion of the findings of the learned Tribunal as follows : On examination of the totality of facts and circumstances of the cases, discussed above, we find that the appellants have made out a reasonable cause for not filing the returns in time and, therefore, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(a) and sustained in the cases of Somanadri Bhupal for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86 and in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited companies, and the long period involved in the income-tax proceedings up to the stage of the first appellate authority setting aside the order of the assessment in the case of the firm, etc., must have contributed to the delay in the filing of the returns by the appellants before us. Thus, the Tribunal has found that the delay was sufficiently explained and there was no reason to impose the penalty. We, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, cannot substitute our own reasoning on appreciation of facts. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. These appeals, therefore, fail and hence the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
