S. NARAYANAN, V. P. These three appeals were taken up for disposal by this consolidated order. We have heard Shri P.C. Aggarwal, ld. counsel for assessee as also Shri D. K. Sharma, departmental representative. assessee is individual. She is partner in firm of M/s J.S. Tractors along with one Jaishree Sharma having equal share in partnership profits. accounting year followed by said firm ends on 31st July each year. ITA No. 3171/85 Asst. yr. 1979-80 Return of income was due from assessee for this year by 31st July, 1979. It was filed only on 3rd July, 1982. There was thus delay of 35 months. ITO issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of Act. assessee explained that books of account of M/s J.S. Tractors had been seized by ST Department on 24th March, 1979. These books of account related to asst. yr. 1978-79 and 1979-80. These books were later on handed over to IT Department and they were in custody of Department and hence return of income for this year could not be filed in time. ITO considered this explanation but did not find it acceptable. She noted that it was clear from letter of Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment)- III, Sales-tax, Agra that Sales-tax authorities had insisted upon M/s J.S. Tractors taking back books of account but that said firm did not care to act in matter. ITO further held that assessee had failed to show any reasonable cause for default. In these circumstances, she took period of unexplained default as 35 months and levied penalty of Rs. 4,930. assessee appealed. It was pointed out before AAC that from letter of ITO-II(A), Agra, mentioning that seized books of above firm were returned by ITO on 27th Nov., 1983 to Sales-tax Deptt. it would be clear that books of firm for asst. yr. 1978-79 (accounting year ended on 31st March, 1978, 1979- 80) and for part period upto 24th March, 1979 for asst. yr. 1980-81 were with said ITO, Agra upto 27th Nov., 1983 i.e. ITO who levied penalty under s. 271(1)(a) was wrong in concluding that Sales-tax Department had insisted on said firm taking back books and about said firm not bothering about it. AAC considered position. She noted that penalty proceedings in t h e case of above firm were also initiated for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a). In view of this position, AAC was of view that it would be reasonable to hold that asessee had reasonable cause upto date on which return of firm was filed for this year. In this regard, she kept in view decision in Triveni Devi vs. Addl. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 390 (All) and CIT vs. P.C. Maheshwari (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 410: (1980) 124 653 (P&H). On this reasoning, she directed ITO to find out date on which return was filed and exclude period up to that period, as having been explained satisfactorily. In fact AAC went so far as to allow further period of 2 months from date on which return of firm was filed for calculating period of default in case of assessee. (It is common ground before us that on this reasoning, which was accepted by Department also, period of default was reckoned as only period of 6 months i.e. from 1st Jan., 1982 to 30th June, 1982. This was because return of firm was filed on 12th Oct., 1981). After hearing period and on material on record, we find reasoning and conclusion recorded by AAC to be eminently reasonable. We are in agreement with same. We decline to interfere. ITA No. 3173/D/1985; Asst. yr. 1980-81 For this year, return of income was due by 30th June, 1980. It was filed only on 3rd July, 1982. There was delay of 23 months. assessee s explanation in penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) was basically same as for asst. yr. 1979-80 noticed above, i.e. books of firm had been seized and hence there was delay in filing of return. ITO, following her order for preceding assessment year rejected assessee s explanation and levied penalty of Rs. 1,622. AAC, following reasoning in appellate order for asst. yr. 1979-80 (in fact, AAC passed consolidated order for asst. yr. 1979-80. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 on 30th March, 1985) held that period of default should stand reasonably explained in case of assessee not only upto date on which above firm filed his return for this year but also for further period of two months as assessee would require some time to complete accounts. Department has accepted this decision and after hearing parties, we would record here that AAC s reasoning and conclusion being most reasonable, did not call for any interference. ITA No. 3172/85; Asst. yr. 1979-80 penalty of Rs. 400 was levied under s. 273(1)(b) of Act for this year. ITO noticed that assessment in this case was completed on total income of Rs. 29,490 raising demand of Rs. 5,230. It was seen that assessee had not filed any statement of advance-tax for this year as required under s. 209A of Act. In reply to show cause notice issued by ITO for levy of penalty, assessee explained that books of M/s J. S. Tractors in which she was 50 per cent partner had been seized on 24th March, 1979 and had not been returned to firm and hence details necessary for filing statement of accounts for advance-tax could not be sorted out leading to default in question. ITO rejected this explanation. She recorded that, in fact, sales-tax authorities had required above firm to take back books of account but firm did not act in matter at all. In other words, according to ITO, assessee did not show any reasonable cause for default. Hence, she levied impugned penalty. assessee appealed. Before AAC, explanation before ITO was reiterated. It was also pointed out that penalty proceedings have been initiated in case of above firm for this year. AAC considered this position. She, however, confirmed penalty after recording following: (a) No penalty proceedings have been initiated in case of firm for asst. yr. 1979-80 under s. 271(1)(b). (b) only explanation given by assessee is that books of firm were seized on 24th March, 1979 and hence it was not possible to furnish statement of advance-tax for this year. But due date for furnishing statement of advance-tax fell in year 1978, which was certainly before date on which books of firm were seized. (c) In view of above position, there was no reasonable cause shown for default and penalty was rightly levied. After hearing parties before us, we see no room for interference. accounting year of firm ended on 31st July, 1978 for asst. yr. 1979-80. There was no dispute on this. Hence, reasons advanced by assessee before authorities below were rightly rejected. We decline to interfere. In result, all three appeals are dismissed. *** SMT. RATAN DEVI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER