Skip to content


Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.K. Sethi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 299 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1980]126ITR394(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(1), 256(2) and 271
AppellantAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentB.K. Sethi
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Bagdia, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC.M. Mehta, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - the appeal preferred by the department to the income-taxappellate tribunal was unsuccessful......the ito called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for the delay in filing the return. the ito, after hearing the assessee, imposed a penalty of rs. 7,256 on the assessee for delay in filing the return. in the appeal preferred by the assessee, the aac set aside the order of the ito and held that, under the circumstances of the case, no penalty was imposable upon the assessee. the appeal preferred by the department to the income-taxappellate tribunal was unsuccessful. the tribunal also rejected the application submitted by the department under section 256(1) of the act on the ground that no question of law arose out of the order of the tribunal. the department has submitted this application under section 256(2) of the act.3. the aac and the tribunal.....
Judgment:

Vijayvargiya, J.

1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, to state the case and refer the proposed questions of law for the opinion of this court.

2. The assessee died on April 17, 1965, and is represented by his legal representative, Shri B. K. Sethi. The assessment year involved is 1963-64. The return of income was due on June 30, 1963, but it was actually filed on March 8, 1965. After completion of the assessment the ITO called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for the delay in filing the return. The ITO, after hearing the assessee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,256 on the assessee for delay in filing the return. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC set aside the order of the ITO and held that, under the circumstances of the case, no penalty was imposable upon the assessee. The appeal preferred by the department to the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal was unsuccessful. The Tribunal also rejected the application submitted by the department under Section 256(1) of the Act on the ground that no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal. The department has submitted this application under Section 256(2) of the Act.

3. The AAC and the Tribunal accepted the explanation of the assesses that the deceased, Lalchand Sethi, used to put his signatures on the returns of income and that everything was being done by one Laxmanlal Soni and that the delay in filing the return was caused on account of the negligence of Laxmanlal Soni. The AAC and the Tribunal held that the negligence of Shri Soni was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the return in time and that, therefore, no penalty was imposable on the assessee for delay in filing the return.

4. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and we see no reason to entertain this application. The application is, therefore, rejected. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //