9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a firm and the relevant years of assessment are 1968-69 and 1969-70. Returns for the respective years were due by September 30, 1968, and September 30, 1969. The assessee had filed both the returns on March 23, 1971. The ITO, therefore, initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act and called upon the assessee to show cause why it may not be penalised for delayed filing of returns. On the date appointed by the ITO there was no explanation and the ITO, therefore, proceeded to impose penalty for both the years. The assessee appealed and before the AAC offered its explanation for non-submission of the returns within the time allowed by law. The AAC accepted the explanation as a fact by holding : " In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was motive or a degree of deliberateness in the delay ........" In second appeal at the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal said : " ...... We find that the asseessee filed the returns voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act for both the years on the same date which showed the bona fides of the assessee. We find nothing on the records to suggest that the assessee was guilty of contumacious conduct or deliberate disregarding of its statutory duties so as to come to the conclusion that the assessee failed to furnish the returns within the time without reasonable cause ........" In spite of notice the assessee has not appeared in this court. Learned standing counsel places strong reliance on a Full Bench decision of this cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was for the revenue to establish absence of reasonable cause was contrary to law. It is true that several other High Courts have accepted the ratio in Alimohamad's case [1974] 97 ITR 133.(Orissa) but in view of the decision of the larger Bench we must proceed on the footing that the relevant aspect of the ratio in Alimohamad's case is not good law. To that extent, the AAC as also the Tribunal went wrong. On the facts of this case, however, we think a distinction has to be drawn. The assessee had contended before the AAC that it had been prevented by reasonable cause from filing the returns within the prescribed time and there was no contumacious conduct or deliberate disregard of statutory duties on its part. This stand, as a fact, was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
