MOHD. ISHAQUE AND ORS. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
[Citation -1987-LL-0804-1]

Citation 1987-LL-0804-1
Appellant Name MOHD. ISHAQUE AND ORS.
Respondent Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/08/1987
Assessment Year 1976-77, 1977-78
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags extension of time • documents seized • original return • income returned • estimate basis • paper seized
Bot Summary: The following table would show the due dates of filing the returns, the date when the return were actually filed, delay and the penalties imposed by the ITO: Due Actual Amount Asst. Filing the filing the levied returns return 31st 1976- 28th Rs. July, 31 77 March 1979 4,340 1976 31st 28th 1977- July, March, 19 Rs.732 78 1977 1979 In reply dt 16th Sept., 1982 to the show cause notices it was submitted that Shri Shamshuddin was confined to bed due to prolonged illness as a result of which he ultimately expired on 3rd Nov., 1976. 1976-77 the due date for filing the return was 31st July 1976, upto which date Shri Shamshuddin was very much alive. The original return was filed on 28th March, 1979 declaring an income of Rs. 7,380 where the revised return was filed on 11th Jan., 1980 declaring an income of Rs. 25,025. 1977-78 is concerned, the return was due to be filed on 31st July, 1977 i.e., not only after the death of Shri Shamshuddin, deceased but also long after the search which took place on 3rd Feb., 1977. Since, we have held that there was no reasonable cause for not being able to file the return for the asst. Yr.1977-78 is concerned, in the first return filed on 28th March 1979, the income returned was Rs. 5,250 which was revised to Rs. 16,140 when the revised return was filed on 22nd March, 1980.


V.P. ELHENCE, J.M. These two appeals filed by assessee arise out of consolidated order dt. 30 th March, 1985 of learned AAC, Meerut Range, Meerut, by which he confirmed penalties levied by ITO for asst. yr. 1976-77 and 1977- 78 under s. 271(1)(A) of IT Act, 1961. 2. original assessee was one Shri Shamshuddin who died on 3rd Nov., 1976. He derived income from property, plying of buses, commission and dairy farming business. following table would show due dates of filing returns, date when return were actually filed, delay and penalties imposed by ITO: Due Actual Amount Asst. dated of date of Delay of penalty yrs. filing filing (in months) levied returns return 31st 1976- 28th Rs. July, 31 77 March 1979 4,340 1976 31st 28th 1977- July, March, 19 Rs.732 78 1977 1979 In reply dt 16th Sept., 1982 to show cause notices it was submitted that Shri Shamshuddin was confined to bed due to prolonged illness as result of which he ultimately expired on 3rd Nov., 1976. It was said that legal heirs were not aware of business activities of Shri Shamshuddin, deceased and therefore, they took time in filling return. It was said that there was protracted litigation in form of appeals before Tribunal and that Shri Shamshuddin, deceased also carried on multifarious activities of which legal heirs were not fully aware. Next it was pointed out that there was search which took place on 3rd Feb., 1977 under s. 132 and legal heirs took time in collecting details and in taking extracts of documents seized by Department. Next, it was submitted that (all) legal heirs except Mohd. Ishaque (who had studied upto B.A.) are illiterate and that returns were filed on estimate basis which had to be revised later. It was also said that legal heirs engaged Advocate much after search under s. 132. However, ITO held defaults to be established and levied penalties mentioned above. 3. In appeal penalties were confirmed by learned AAC. 4 . Shri O.P. Sapra, learned counsel for assessee reiterated contents of written submission made on behalf of assessee before learned AAC wherein reference was also made to following decisions: (i) Swami Industries vs. ITO (1978) TTJ (Coch) 171 (decided by Cochin Bench of Tribunal); (ii) Mothoo Ram Prem Chand vs. ITO (1983) 15 TTJ *Chd) 66 decided by Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal). (iii) ITO vs. E.A. Swami (1981) 11 TTJ ((Mad)) 266 (decided by Madras Bench of Tribunal). On other hand Smt. Archana Ranjan, learned Departmental representative strongly relied upon orders of IT authorities. 5 . We have considered rival submissions as also decisions referred to above. factual question which requires to be determined is whether for assessment years in question delay in filing returns was for reasonable cause. For asst. yr. 1976-77 due date for filing return was 31st July 1976, upto which date Shri Shamshuddin was very much alive. There is no evidence placed by appellants on record regarding alleged prolonged illness of Shri Shamshuddin deceased prior to 3rd Nov., 1976. It is not as if appellants are to be penalised for not moving applications for extension of time for filing returns but conduct of asking for extension becomes relevant. In present case no applications for extension were moved by appellants even thought atleast one of them namely Mohd. Ishaque is graduate. So far as multifarious activities of Shamshuddin deceased are concerned, in context of facts, they also do not assist appellant. As for search, we notice from order dt. 2nd April, 1981 of learned CIT(A) on assessment side that no regular account books were seized in regard to various sources of income. paper seized consisted of one register and some loose papers relating to period 3rd Nov., 1976 to 31st Jan., 1977. It could not be said that legal heirs took time in collecting details and in taking extract of seized documents. Even if some of appellants were illiterate, it is clear that substantial amount of income was earned. That would not have been possible without due attention. Similar attention could have been bestowed for filing return as well. original return was filed on 28th March, 1979 declaring income of Rs. 7,380 where revised return was filed on 11th Jan., 1980 declaring income of Rs. 25,025. ITO completed assessment on income of Rs. 79,250 which was reduced in appeal to Rs. 31,351. All that be said on basis of material on record is that whatever may have been causes for not filing return in time, those causes were not established to be reasonable. So far as asst. yr. 1977-78 is concerned, return was due to be filed on 31st July, 1977 i.e., not only after death of Shri Shamshuddin, deceased but also long after search which took place on 3rd Feb., 1977. Since, we have held that there was no reasonable cause for not being able to file return for asst. yr. 1976-77 in time, appellants do not get any assistance from appellants do not get any assistance from contention that return for asst. yr. 1977-78 could not be filed unless return for asst. yr. 1976-77 had been filed. Incidentally it may be pointed out that so far as asst.yr.1977-78 is concerned, in first return filed on 28th March 1979, income returned was Rs. 5,250 which was revised to Rs. 16,140 when revised return was filed on 22nd March, 1980. assessment was however, completed on income of Rs. 48,590 by ITO which got reduced as result of appeal, to Rs.18,890. Here also assessee failed to establish existence of reasonable cause for delay. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with penalties imposed by ITO and confirmed by learned AAC in first appeal. 6. appeal therefore fail and are dismissed. *** MOHD. ISHAQUE AND ORS. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Report Error