9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neously on 29th Nov., 1973. There was thus delay in furnishing the returns for these two years under appeal. The ITO, therefore, issued a notice for each of the assessment years to the assessee to show cause why penalty need not be levied for delay in furnishing the returns. 3. The assessee explained to the ITO that the assessee was assessed for the first time for the asst. yr. 1966-67 on total income of Rs. 19,160 on 10th Oct., 1967in the status of a registered firm, that the exemption limit in the case of registered firm for that year was Rs. 25,000 and, therefore, the case was declared 'N.A.', that the income of the assessee upto the asst. yr. 1969-70 was below that taxable limit, that the assessee did not receive any notice under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar proof of the bona fides of the assessee as the returns were not only for the assessment year under appeal but for the earlier and subsequent assessment year as well. When the assessee was advised, his bona fide belief till then held, no longer survived and the assessee hastened to file the returns not only for the assessment year under appeal but for all the years for which the returns were due. The assessee has not at any stage given the explanation that the returns could not be filed as the books of account were not completed. In fact, the assessee had nothing to gain by not filing the returns because the income assessed for the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1971-72 is the same as the income returned by the assessee. In other words, it was sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e having been involved to earn their existence of life, I take liberal view in the matter that there was no intentional, deliberate and wilful motive to withhold the said declaration to the firm being otherwise genuine for the asst. yr. 1967-68." In nut-shell he submitted that the bona fide belief of the assessee that he was not liable to tax and that he was liable to file the returns only on receipt of notice from the Department prevented from filing the returns and thus committed a venial breach of law from which no penalty may be levied. The authorities below, therefore, erred in imposing penalties upon the assessee for both the years under appeal. The penalties may be cancelled. 7. The Revenue, on the other hand, opposed these sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the asst. yr. 1966-67 when the return was filed by the assessee voluntarily, the case was adjudged as 'NA'. The assessee has five partners and there was no tax due from the assessee for that year. With this back ground, the contention that the assessee believed that he was not liable to tax and as such was not liable to file the returns is believable and is believed. 9. For the asst. yr. 1971-72, no doubt the income assessed and the income returned was more than Rs. 25,000 but the other part of the assessee's belief that the return was to be filed on receipt of a notice from the Department explains the conduct of the assessee in not filing the returns within time for that year as well. In fact, the filing of returns for a number of years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
