9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 within the prescribed time or even within the extended time, which was up to 15th August, 1967. Thereafter, a notice under s. 139(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee by the ITO on March 13, 1968. But even thereafter for a period of more than a year, the assessee did not file any return and the return was actually filed by the assessee on December 23, 1969. The return showed that the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 18,900 by way of interest to the partners, but the same was not added back by the assessee. The assessee disclosed its income for the relevant assessment year at Rs. 24,798 only which was below the minimum taxable limit prescribed at the relevant time in respect of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also held that the assessee never advanced the plea that the amount in respect of which the interest was paid by the firm to its partners was in the nature of borrowing from other persons or the HUF, even before the ITO or the AAC, but it was only argued for the first time before the Tribunal and as such the same could not be allowed. The assessee, thereafter, filed an application before the Tribunal for making a reference to this court for its opinion, but that application was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated January 28, 1974, on the ground that the questions sought to be referred by the assessee were purely questions of facts on which no reference was possible. Hence, this application under s. 256(2) of the Act. Mr. S. M. Meh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause on the part of the assessee to furnish the return was either deliberately made in defiance of law or was a result of conscious disregard of the obligation of the assessee. Thus, there is no doubt that the legal burden is on the department to establish by leading some evidence that prima facie the assessee had without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return within the time specified by law, but once the initial burden is discharged by the department, which may be very light, it is for the assessee to show that he had reasonable cause for failing to file the return within the prescribed time. In Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that although the finding given in the assessment proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the case. Further we are of the view that whether there was a borrowing or not is a pure question of fact and whether in the absence of any borrowing the assessee could still entertain a belief that its income was less than the minimum taxable limit, not to say of a bona fide and honest belief in that respect, is also a question of fact. On both these questions, the Tribunal has come to a definite conclusion after a careful consideration of the entirety of the circumstances appearing in the case and no contention was even advanced or otherwise has been put forward before us on behalf of the assessee to contest the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, on the basis of the circumstances, appearing in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
