9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he delay was partly caused by the delay in the finalisation of accounts of the firm. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessments for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76, and initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'), and levied penalties under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer issued notices proposing to levy penalties and there was no response at all from the assessee and hence he levied penalties for all the four years as under : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment Date of filing Date of filing Period of Penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal held that till April 1, 1976, the assessee was a minor and till that date, the default was on the guardian father and the obligations cast on the representative assessee would clearly indicate that the penalty could be levied for the default committed during the period when the assessee was a minor. The Appellate Tribunal also rejected the contention that there was reasonable cause for the delay for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1975-76 but for the assessment year 1974-75, the Tribunal found that there was some justification for not filing the return in time. The Appellate Tribunal held that for the assessment year 1975-76, there was a delay of 21 months in filing the return even after taking into account the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. He referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and submitted that during the period of minority, the assessee could not file the returns and, therefore, the penalty could not be imposed on the minor. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the penalty in this case was imposed on the assessee when he became a major and it is not a case of levy of penalty on the minor. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the assessee and learned counsel for the Revenue. In so far as the first question referred to us is concerned, the question proceeds on a wrong assumption that penalty was levied on a minor. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee attained majority on April 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bound to file the return on behalf of the minor and he is also responsible to file the return in time on behalf of the minor, and if there is any default or delay on his part in filing such a return, then the liability for such default or delay is also liable to be imposed on him. This court, in CIT v. R. Srinivasan [1997] 228 ITR 214, held that though the tax was payable for the income of the minor since the minor cannot file the return, his father and guardian has to file the return on behalf of the minor for the minor's income. When the guardian has not taken any steps to file the return in time, the guardian would be responsible and it cannot be stated that no penalty can be levied on the minor. The penalty imposed in such circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty on the assessee, as on the date when the order of penalty was passed he could not levy penalty on the representative assessee, as the guardian can no longer be considered as a representative assessee and he ceased to be a guardian on the attaining of the majority by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in holding that the penalty was validly imposed on the assessee. In so far as the second question that is referred at the instance of the assessee is concerned, we find that the assessee has not offered any explanation for the delay in filing the return before the Income-tax Officer nor any explanation was offered by the assessee before the Tribunal. For the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, the question of placing the burden of proof on the Department does not arise on the facts of the case. The first question proceeds on the assumption as if the penalty was imposed on the minor. We have already held that the penalty was imposed on the assessee after he attained the majority. We, therefore, reframe the first question of law as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the orders of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Act on the assessee for the delay in filing the return during the period when the assessee was a minor ?" We answer the first question of law, as reframed by us, in the affirmative and against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
