High Court Of Madras
Premier Metal & Engineering Corporation vs. CIT
R. Jayasimha Babu & Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
T.C. No. 1009 of 1988
25th September, 2001
P.P.S. Janardhana Raja, for the Assessee : Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The assessee is aggrieved by the order of penalty for delayed submission of return. Admittedly, the delay was long. Numerous applications for extension of time had been filed. The Tribunal has taken those applications into account. It has held that the period not covered by those applications were periods for which there was no satisfactory explanation. As the reason for seeking time was that the accounts had to be finalised but there was no material to show as to when the accounts were given to the auditors. The delay in submitting the audit report was pleaded as the reason for the further delay that had occurred after the periods covered by Form No. 6 had expired.
2. The discretion exercised by the Tribunal in rejecting the explanation was entirely within its jurisdiction and did not violate any principle of law. It did not act arbitrarily in rejecting such explanation. The question referred to us regarding the correctness of the levy of penalty which was upheld by the Tribunal is, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
[Citation : 254 ITR 494]