V. M. G. RAJENDRA VANDAYAR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
[Citation -1984-LL-0728-12]

Citation 1984-LL-0728-12
Appellant Name V. M. G. RAJENDRA VANDAYAR
Respondent Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 28/07/1984
Assessment Year 1974-75
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags show-cause notice • bona fide belief • returned income • estimate basis • taxable limit
Bot Summary: For later submission of return of his income, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that he had handed over the relevant papers to his Auditor in time, but the Auditor did not file the return of income till 17th Nov., 1975. In the course of appellate proceedings before the AAC, the assessee pleaded that his returned income, being Rs. 4,000 or so, was below the taxable limit and that it was only because that his income was finally assessed at Rs. 28.923. The plea of the assessee that the delay in filing the return was attributable to the negligence of his Auditor is not supported by any material on record. The mere fact that the Auditor was removed by the assessee after about two years does not substantiate the contention of the assessee. Counsel for the assessee before us is that the returned income of the assessee amounted to Rs. 4,000 or so and that the ITO assessed the same at Rs. 28,923 on account of certain additions made on estimate basis and the disallowing certain expenses claimed by the assessee. According to him, the assessee was under a bona fide belief that his income was below the taxable limit, that he was not legally bound to file the return of his income and, as such, no penalty could be levied on him for the delay in filing the return.


M. R. SIKKA, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by assessee against order dt. 9th Sept. 1983 of AAC whereby, he has confirmed penalty of Rs. 5,689 levied by ITO on him under s. 271(1)(a) of IT Act, 1961. IT return of assessee for asst. yr. 1974-75 was due on 30th J u ly , 1974. sums was, however, filed on 17th Nov. 1975. For later submission of return of his income, penalty proceedings were initiated against assessee. In response to show-cause notice, assessee submitted that he had handed over relevant papers to his Auditor in time, but Auditor did not file return of income till 17th Nov., 1975. Thus, assessee contended that delay in filing return of this income was attributable to negligence of his Auditor and, as such, no penalty was leviable on him. ITO rejected this explanation of assessee and levied penalty of Rs. 5,689 on him under s. 271(1)(a) of IT Act, 1961. In course of appellate proceedings before AAC, assessee pleaded that his returned income, being Rs. 4,000 or so, was below taxable limit and that it was only because that his income was finally assessed at Rs. 28.923. He also reiterated his contention that delay in filing return was attributable to negligence of Auditor. pleas of assessee did not find favour with AAC who confirmed penalty order. Aggrieved by order of AAC, assessee has filed present appeal. After going through record and hearing ld. representatives of parties, we do not find any substance in this appeal. plea of assessee that delay in filing return was attributable to negligence of his Auditor is not supported by any material on record. There is no evidence to indicate date on which assessee gave relevant papers to his Auditor for preparing return. Nor is there any other material to show as to why Auditor detained papers with him. mere fact that Auditor was removed by assessee after about two years does not substantiate contention of assessee. We, therefore, reject same. Another contention of ld. Counsel for assessee before us is that returned income of assessee amounted to Rs. 4,000 or so and that ITO assessed same at Rs. 28,923 on account of certain additions made on estimate basis and disallowing certain expenses claimed by assessee. According to him, assessee was under bona fide belief that his income was below taxable limit, that he was not legally bound to file return of his income and, as such, no penalty could be levied on him for delay in filing return. In support of his case, he relies upon CIT, Bombay vs. Allied Silk Mills (1982) 26 CTR (Bom) 132: (1983) 140 ITR 428 (Bom). This contention of assessee is also not acceptable. IN first instance, this plea is merely after-thought because same was never taken by assessee in reply to show-cause notice. Secondly, we find from record that notice under s. 139(2) was issued to assessee before due date. That being so, assessee was legally bound to file return of his income. This having not been done, plea of assessee that he was under no obligation to file return of his income, carries no weight and authority cited by him is of no avail to him. Thus, after appraising entire material on record, we hold that assessee was not prevented by any reasonable cause from filing return of his income within statutory period. We, therefore, confirm penalty order. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** V. M. G. RAJENDRA VANDAYAR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Report Error