These five appeals filed by Revenue against consolidated order of CIT (A), Central-I, Bombay cancelling penalties under s. 271 (1) (a) of asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70, and penalties under s. 273(b) for asst. y r s . 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, deal with similar issues and are, therefore, for sake of convenience disposed of by common order. assessee is individual. voluntary returns of total income were due by 31st July 1968 for asst. yr. 1968-69 and by 31st July 1969 for asstt. Yr. 1969-70, but they were filed only on 30th Jan., 1969 and 10th Jan., 1972 respectively. assessee also did not file voluntary estimates of advance tax as required by s. 212 for asst. yrs. 1967-1968 to 1969-70. ITO, therefore, in course of assessment proceedings, initiated action for penalty for late filing of returns for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 and for non-filing of voluntary advance tax estimates for asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In response to show cause notice, assessee submitted before ITO that there was raid on assessee s premises by t h e Customs authorities sometime in February, 1967 when all accounts books and documents were seized and later on handed over to IT authorities, which were released to assessee only at end of 1969. There was another aid again by Customs authorities on 27th July 1969. father of assessee expired on 14th Aug., 1967, assessee s mother died on 5th Jan., 1968 followed by death of his grand-father on 20th March 1968. assessee was also due to enmity with Shri Haji Mastan shot at on 19th Nov., 1969 as result of which he suffered grievous bodily injuries, he had to undergo three operations one 21st Jan, 1969, another in Sep., 1971 and third one sometime in March, 1972, and because of these happenings one after other, assessee lost his balance of mind and was so much upset that he could not file either returns of income within time or voluntary estimates of advance tax. Here it will be necessary to point out that assessee also moved settlement petition requesting for waiver of penalties and interest on same grounds and IAC, Central Range-III, Bombay, directed that interest for late filing of returns for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 and interest for non-filing of voluntary estimate of advance tax for all three asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70 should be waived. ITO was, however, not satisfied with assessee s explanation for late filing of returns for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 and for non-filing of voluntary advance-tax estimates for asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70. He, therefore, imposed penalties under s. 271(1) (a) for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 which amounted to Rs. 12,285 and Rs. 3,72,515 respectively. He also imposed penalties under s. 273(b) for non-filing of voluntary advance-tax estimates which amounted to Rs. 40,700 for asst. yrs. 1967-68 and Rs. 11,520 for asst. yr. 1968-69 and Rs. 55,900 for asst. yrs. 1969-70. When matter went up in appeal, CIT (A) held that since interest for late filing of returns for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 and for non-filing of voluntary advance tax estimates for asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70 had been waived, there was no justification for levy of any penalty for these defaults. He, therefore, cancelled penalties imposed by ITO and allowed appeals of assessee. revenue is aggrieved and, had therefore, come up in present appeals before us. ld. Departmental Representative, Shri Raju, submitted to us that waiver of interest and levy of penalty for late filing of returns and non-filing of voluntary advance-tax estimates are different issues and, therefore, simply because interest was waived could not be ground for cancellation of penalty for same default. Reference in this connection was made by him to ruling of Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of T.Venkata Krishnaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 297, (AP) wherein their Lordships laid down that even if interest was levied for delayed filing of return, it was open to ITO also to impose penalty under s. 271 (1) (a) because imposts are different and distinct and have been provided to meet different situations and contingencies. He, therefore, justified penalty orders of ITO and submitted that penalties imposed were wronglyl cancelled in appeal by CIT (A). On other hand, ld. counsel for assessee, Shri D. M. Harish, took us through order of IAC, Central Range-III, Bombay, dt. 31st May, 1975, waiving interest under ss. 139 and 217 on following grounds: "1968-69 and 1969-70. In this case returns have been filed on 29th Jan., 1969 and 10th Jan., 1972. I am satisfied that assessee s failure to furnish to furnish return of income in time for these years did not arise out of any wilful desire to escape taxation and was due to circumstances beyond his control. As such, there will be no interest charged. entire interest would be waived. Int. u/s 217 I am satisfied that this is fit case for waiver of interest for all three years viz. 1967-68 to 1969-70." Proceeding further, Shri Harish submitted that if IAC was satisfied that assessee s failure to furnish returns of total income within time for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 did not arise out of any wilful desire to avoid taxation and was due to circumstances beyond his control, there was no question of any penalty under s. 271 (1) (a). He also submitted that once IAC was satisfied that this was fit case for waiver of interest under s. 271, it automatically implied that there were exceptional circumstances on account of which voluntary advance-tax estimates could not be filed and wen this was so, there was no question of any penalty under s. 273 (b). he also referred to facts mentioned in his petition for settlement and in reply to show cause notice which were most extraordinary and in view of these extraordinary and in view of these extraordinary facts and circumstances, assessee s default of not filing income-tax returns within time and not filing voluntary advance-tax estimates was not without reasonable cause. He, therefore, justified order of CIT (A) cancelling these penalties. We have carefully considered rival submissions. Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of T.Venkata Krishnaiah vs. CIT (supra), were dealing with imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) where interest had also been levied for delay in filing of return, unlike in present case, where interest for delay in filing of return has already been waived and issue under consideration is whether penalty under s. 271(1)(a) can be justified. ruling of Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of T.Venkata Krishnaiah will, therefore, not be applicable in present case. penalties, both under s. 271(1) (a) and under s. 273 (b) have been prescribed only where default is without reasonable cause. Viewed in this context, it is not under dispute that IAC by order dt. 31st May, 1975 was satisfied that assessee s failure to furnish returns of total income for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 within time was due to circumstances beyond his control, and this was fit case for waiver of interest under s. 217 for all three asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70. It might perhaps be not out of place to mention here that while charge of interest is generally automatic and it is only in extraordinary circumstances that interest is waived, imposition of penalty for failure to carry out statutory obligation is result of quasi-criminal proceeding and as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless assessee acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or in conscious disregard of its obligation, and whether penalty should be imposed was matter of discretion of authority to be exercised judiciously and on consideration of all relevant circumstances. Viewed in this context, when IAC himself was satisfied that assessee s failure to furnish return of total income within time was due to circumstances beyond his control, it is obvious that delay in filing of return of total income for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 was not without reasonable cause. Similarly, when interest under s. 217 for asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70 was waived on ground that IAC was satisfied that this was fit case for waiver of interest, it automatically follows that there were extraordinary circumstances for departure from normal rule of charge of interest for not filing voluntary estimate of advance tax. Even otherwise, looking to facts of case where assessee was subject to number of raids by Customs Authorities in course of which its account books and documents were seized and later on handed over to IT authorities, he lost his father, mother and grand-father in quick succession and was also due to enmity shot at on 19th Nov., 1969 as result of which he suffered grievous bodily injuries, had to undergo three operations in November, 1969, September, 1971 and March, 1972, we have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that assessee s defaults of not filing returns of total income within time for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 and defaults of not filing voluntary estimates of advance tax for asst. yr. 1967-68 to 1969-70 were not without reasonable cause. Considering all this and looking to totality of facts and circumstances, we are of view that penalties under s. 271 (1) (a) for asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 and under s. 273 (b) for asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70 were not justified and were rightly cancelled in appeal by CIT (A). appeals filed by Revenue fail and are hereby dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. YUSUF ABDULLA PATEL