9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 271(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 35,569 ? " It is enough if the said question No. 1 is answered. The said question relates to the assessment year 1977-78. There was a delay of about two years and seven months on the part of the assessee in filing its income-tax return (sic) (a) of the Act as it stood then. The said provision, in the abovereferred to assessment year, stood as follows : "If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-- (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by notice given under sub-section (2) of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the other, of delaying the return and facing the equally onerous penal consequences of such delay ". But, in the second appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Tribunal restored the penalty levied and allowed the appeal before it on the ground, "the assessee's argument that it was restrained from filing the return because of its having to pay self-tax immediately is not a valid reason for the delay in question. It is the assessee's statutory obligation to file its income-tax return under section 139(1) which it failed to discharge. The assessee chose to file the return only after notice under section 148 had been served". Despite the argument of learned counsel for the assessee before us, it is clear to us that the reasoning of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent has extended the time for filing the return till the date when it was filed. No doubt, in this regard, CIT v. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433 (SC) was relied on. But, it must be stated first of all, that from the records in the present penalty proceeding, learned counsel for the assessee could not point out that such interest payment had been made. Therefore, here also, there is absolutely no basis for his abovesaid argument. No doubt, he ventures to submit that the records relating to assessment of tax would show that such interest had been paid. But, even here, he could not assert so positively. He only makes a guess. Here again, it is indeed very strange that such an argument is made without any basis, particularly when we are ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Income-tax Officer acting on an application made by the assessee for the purpose and extending the date for furnishing the return. " But, after the abovesaid amendment of 1970, that is during the period between April 1, 1971, and 1989, the law was, whether time extension for filing the return was granted or not, interest is payable. In such a situation, the presumption of time extension for filing the return, based on collection of interest by the Department, as held by CIT v. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433 (SC), in relation to the position prior to the abovesaid 1970 amendment, would not arise at all. It has also been held in Ravi Steel Corporation v. ITO [1991] 187 ITR 684 (Mad) that in view of the abovesaid amendment with eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
