This appeal by Revenue and cross objection by assessee is directed against order of CIT (A) dt. 14th Feb., 1983 by which he cancelled penalty imposed by ITO under s. 271(1)(a) of Act. assessee filed return of income on 20th March, 1978 which was due to be filed by 14th Aug., 1975. ITO, therefore, initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) o f Act and issued show cause notice. assessee, however, did not comply with notice served by ITO on assessee time to time. ITO, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs. 43,197. assessee appealed to CIT (A) and contended that there was delay in filing return due to fact that there was theft in assessees business premises and alongwith other things books of accounts were also stolen. It was submitted that assessee lodged compliant with Kotwali Sadar, Agartala, being complaint No. 9/324. dt. 4th May, 1974. It was also submitted that police investigated case for long time but could not recover stolen articles. It was, therefore, urged that assessee was very much inconvenienced in re-preparing books of account because earlier years accounts were also lost in theft. It was, therefore, submitted that there was reasonable cause for delayed submission of return and, therefore, no penalty should be imposed in this case. CIT (A) after considering submissions made before him as also going through facts of case cancelled penalty by observing as under: "I am convinced that delay in filing return for instant asst. yr. 1975-76 was caused by adequate reasons. But there is another aspect and that is why at no point of time during course of proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) appellant gave ITO explanation that delay in filing return was caused by reasons and under circumstances as mentioned above. To this appellant now states before me that appellant was under genuine, though wrong, impression that penalty proceedings could wait till disposal of appeal filed by appellant against quantum of assessment for year 1975-76. This is wrong impression altogether. Ignorance of law is no excuse. But fact remains that appellant was prevented by sufficient reason from filing return for asst. yr. 1975-76 in time. Under circumstances no penalty under s. 271 (1)(a) is leviable". Against said order of CIT (A), Revenue has preferred appeal and assessee has also filed cross objection. It was contended by ld. Departmental representative that assessee could not satisfactorily explain reason for delayed submission of return. He pointed out that even assessee did not care to comply with notices issued by ITO time to time. He also pointed out that assessee was habitual defaulter, in as much as in subsequent years also, assessee had not filed returns within prescribed time. He, therefore, submitted that CIT (A) was not justified in cancelling penalty. ld. Counsel for assessee, on other hand, contended that fact that there was theft in assessees premises and as result of which assessees' books of accounts alongwith other valuables were stolen was supported by evidence. He furnished before us copy of complaint lodged before Police on 4th May, 1974. ld. Counsel for assessee vehemently urged that because of this theft, partners of assessee firm had to attend Police Station frequently and, therefore, they could not attend normal works of business. It was also claimed that since books of accounts and necessary papers of earlier years were not available, assessee took long time for re-preparation of books of accounts. He, therefore, urged that there was reasonable cause which prevented assessee from filing return within prescribed time. In short, ld. Counsel for assessee tried to make out case that there was reasonable cause for delayed submission of return and CIT(A) was justified in cancelling penalty. We have heared submission of both parties and considered facts of case. fact that there was theft in business promises and books of accounts alongwith other valuables were stolen as result of that theft was not controverted by ld. departmental representative. fact of theft was also supported by FIR lodged by assessee with Kotwali S d r , Agartala, being No.9/324 dt. 4th May, 1974. possibility of inconvenience in re-preparation of books of account in absence of supporting documents or books of account which was stolen cannot be ruled out. On consideration of these facts, it has to be held that delay in filing return by assessee was not without any reasonable cause. As stated in Stroud's judicial Dictionary", word reasonable has in law prima facie meaning of being reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which actor, called on to Act reasonably, knows or ought to know", Viewed thus, we uphold order of CIT(A). cross objection filed by assessee without having any special ground is fit to be dismissed. In result, appeal as well as cross objection are dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. S.K. BANIK & BROS.