9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for filing the return late but had also applied for extension of time upto 30th Sept., 1982 by its application in Form No. 6 dt. 28th June, 1982. But he did not accept that non-finalisation of accounts by the accountant of the assessee was a reasonable cause for condoning the delay as reduced by the period of extension sought by the assessee. He, therefore, directed the ITO to count the period of default from 1st Oct., 1982 and levy penalty accordingly. 3. Mr. S.N. Divatia, C.A. appearing for the assessee had urged that the penalty was not legally sustainable for the reason that the same was levied by the ITO without applying his mind in as much as that neither assessee's application for extension of time nor its explanation was ever ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offered by on assessee with regard to the delay in filing the return and instead proceeds on the footing that no explanation at all has been offered by the assessee, it would not simply be a case of mistake, defect or omission in the penalty proceedings so as to be rectifiable under s.292B of the Act. It would be a case of dereliction of duty resulting in loss of right of the assessee of being heard before being condemned for the default and consequently a case of miscarriage of justice. 5. Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) are quasi-criminal proceeding, though the standard of proof required to prove a fact in such proceedings is that which is adopted in the decisions of disputes of civil nature. Preponderance of probability, applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd such a belief can be said to be quite bona fide, the non-consideration of the explanation offered by him should lead to similar inference and conclusion. If the explanation offered by the assessee has not been considered by the ITO at all and no mention thereof has been made in his order, an assessee may, on the same analogy, say that his explanation was not rejected. In that case, the appellate authority could not legitimately proceed on the footing that the explanation had been rejected. This must be so with regard to explanation offered for exoneration from penal liabilities. 7. In the instant case, ITO's paying no attention either to the extension application or to the explanation offered by the assessee exhibits the total arbitrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
