9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83 ITR 26 ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not going into the question of the existence of reasonable cause in the case of the assessee, for its failure to file the return within time and in not recording a finding whether the assessee was or was not guilty of such default which rendered it liable for a penalty under section 271(1)(a) ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty ? " The facts stated are as follows. The assessee is a: registered firm, For the assessment year 1964-65, the return was due on 30th June, 1964, under s. 139(1) of the Act, but the assessee filed the return on 10th March, 1965. The ITO held the assessee liable for penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey stand punished already, ends of justice are served by resting view of all the facts and circumstances of the case (sic); we accordingly delete the penalty. " A reading of the order of the Tribunal will go to show that the Tribunal held that the assessee was technically liable for penalty under s. 271(1)(a) for not filing its return within time. The Tribunal must be deemed to have impliedly held that there was no reasonable cause for the late filing of return, for, it is only on this implied finding that the assessee could be held liable for penalty under s. 271(1)(a). The Tribunal, however, further held that penalty need not be imposed in all cases because it is lawful to do so and that it has a discretion not to impose penalty when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that an assessee is liable for payment of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) if he fails to file the return within time without any reasonable cause and that no further mens rea is necessary to make him liable. This is no doubt the correct legal position as held by this court in Nemichand Ganeshmal v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 438 (MP) and the Supreme Court case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26, cannot be relied upon in the context of s. 271(1)(a) for the proposition that it should be shown that the assessee acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious conduct before he can be held liable under s. 271(1)(a). But this does not militate against the view that penalty need not be imposed in all case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
