High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
Janeshwar Lal Rajeshwar Lal vs. CIT
Section 271(1)(a), 273B
Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85
Deepak Gupta & Surinder Singh, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 12 of 1994
27th April, 2007
Counsel Appeared :
K.D. Sood, for the Applicant : Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J. :
The aforesaid reference has been made to us to decide the following purported question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, while upholding penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, for each of the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85, was right in law in giving the finding that there was no reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the return in time ?”
2. In fact, prima facie, in our opinion the question of law, as framed by the Tribunal, is not a question of law at all. However, since this question has been referred to us, we are answering the same. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had admittedly not filed his returns within time, for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85. The assessee filed the return for the asst. yr. 198384 on 7th Aug., 1985, whereas the due date was 31st July, 1983. For the asst. yr. 1984-85 the due date was 31st July, 1984 but the return was filed on 9th Aug., 1985. It appears that the returns were actually filed after some survey was conducted and the assessee surrendered an income of Rs. 1,00,000 for each of the assessment years. A penalty of Rs. 35,195 was levied for late submission of the return for the year 1983-84 and Rs. 18,385 for the asst. yr. 1984-85. The assessee had filed appeals, against the orders of levying penalty, and these appeals being numbers—ITA Nos. 877 and 878 were dismissed on 14th May, 1993 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had not made any request for extension of time and also held that there was no material on record to support the case. The claim of the assessee was that one of the partners had suffered heart attack and thereafter the assessee filed an application for rectification of the order of Tribunal. Along with the application for rectification, the assessee had also placed on record the application filed in Form No. 6 with the ITO, ‘B’ Ward, Shimla in which the assessee had prayed for extension of time to file the assessment (sic.- return). The relevant portion of the application reads as follows : “It is, therefore, requested that time for furnishing return may be extended upto 30th Sept., 1983. As the managing partner is suffering from heart attack as such, trading account/P&L a/c /balance sheet could not prepared.”
4. The Tribunal partly allowed the application (sic.- appeal) and gave benefit of two months upto 30th Sept., 1983 as prayed for by the assessee in the application for extension of time. Thereafter, the assessee made an application, for reference, to this Court and it is in this context that the reference has been made. We have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the assessee and Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, advocate, appearing on behalf of the Revenue.
Mr. Sood, learned counsel has contended that in the application for extension of time, it was clearly mentioned that the managing partner of the firm is suffering from a heart attack and as such trading account/P&L a/c /balance sheet could not be furnished. On this basis he submits that if this explanation has been accepted for two months, there is no reason why it should not be accepted for the rest of the claim. We are unable to accept this contention. The assessee had specifically prayed for extension of time upto 30th Sept., 1983 which has been accepted by the Tribunal. There is no material on record to show that the managing partner was under treatment after 30th Sept., 1983. There is no material on record to show that the managing partner was not attending the business after 30th Sept., 1983. If the assessee wants extension of time, he must place sufficient material on record before the AO along with requisite application to show that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay for filing the return in this case. There is neither any prayer nor any explanation for extending the time after 30th Sept., 1983. Therefore, in our considered view no extension of time could have been granted. The reference is accordingly answered against the assessee.
[Citation : 323 ITR 274]
