9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended by the assessee that the return had been filed late because the assessee had been contemplating to file a voluntary disclosure. In fact, the assessee subsequently filed a disclosure petition under section 68 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee. He held that there was no connection between not filing the return in time by the assessee and the voluntary disclosure scheme and levied a penalty of Rs. 15,234 under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer, but gave a direction to the Income-tax Officer to recompute the quantum of income in the light of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ait from 1962 till 1965. He also found that there was no evidence that the assessee was contemplating to make any disclosure or that the partners of the assessee were not agreeing to the same. He confirmed the order of penalty. By reason of the difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to a third member under section 255(4) of the Act. The third member of the Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Accountant Member. He held, inter alia, that (a) Mere failure to file a return of income was not tantamount to a default on the part of the assessee until and unless it was shown that the said default was committed by the assessee without reasonable cause. (b) The assessee was conscious of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" At the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee. We heard the submissions of the learned advocate for the Revenue. It appears to us that the Tribunal in its majority decision found as fact that the assessee, in any event, and irrespective of any scheme intended to make a voluntary disclosure. The partners could not agree and make up their minds as to the disclosure or its quantum. In that view, there was delay in filing of the return. Ultimately, return was filed and disclosure was also made. The same was accepted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
