Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi-i Vs. S. Daljit Singh, 10, Regal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-i. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberI.T.C. No. 61 of 1976
Reported in(1976)5CTR(Del)165
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi-i
RespondentS. Daljit Singh, 10, Regal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-i.
Excerpt:
- .....the tribunal was justified in holding that there was reasonable cause for delay in filling the return of income ?'2. the assessed is shri daljit singh. the accounting period ended on 31st march, 1967 and the return of income was due on 30th september, 1967. he applied for extension of time, and the same was extended till 30th october, 1967. he, however, filed the return on 4th november, 1970. prior to this, the income-tax officer passed an order on 31st december, 1969, raising the said assessment under section 144 of the act. but on the assessed filling an application under section 146, the said assessment was set aside accepting the explanationn of the assessed and holding that the assessed had reasonable cause for not complying with the notice.3. thereafter, re-assessment under.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - This is an application filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi under section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B be required to state the case and refer the following questions said to arise out of the order of the aforesaid Tribunal dated January 22, 1975, in the Income-Tax Appeal No. 2339 of 1973-74, relating to the assessment year 1967-68 :

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was reasonable cause for delay in filling the return of income ?'

2. The assessed is Shri Daljit Singh. The accounting period ended on 31st March, 1967 and the return of income was due on 30th September, 1967. He applied for extension of time, and the same was extended till 30th October, 1967. He, however, filed the return on 4th November, 1970. Prior to this, the Income-Tax Officer passed an order on 31st December, 1969, raising the said assessment under section 144 of the Act. But on the assessed filling an application under section 146, the said assessment was set aside accepting the Explanationn of the assessed and holding that the assessed had reasonable cause for not complying with the notice.

3. Thereafter, re-assessment under section 143 (3) was made on 6th January 1971, and the Income-Tax Officer issued a notice to the assessed to show cause why the penalty be not levied under section 271(1)(a) for the delay in filling the return. The assessed filed a reply showing cause on 13th December, 1971. He submitted that the Accountant who used to look after his income-tax affairs did not take any interest in the matter and the delay was due to the same. The Income-Tax Officer did not accept the said submission of the assessed and levied a penalty of Rs. 32,738/-.

4. On appeal by the assessed, the appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-Tax Officer, but the Income-Tax Officer to calculate the amount of penalty after taking into account the tax payable on the income which was finally determined.

5. On further appeal to the appellate Tribunal by the assessed, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated January 22, 1975 held that it could not be said that the assessed had no reasonable cause for the delay in filling the return, and that the Income Tax Officer was not right in levying penalty. It accordingly cancelled the penalty.

6. It is quite clear that the question assessment to whether there was reasonable cause for the delay in filling the return is one of fact. No question of law can be said to arise out of such a finding. The Tribunal was, thereforee, justified in dismissing the application filed by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act. For the same reasons, we also decline to require the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed question to this Court. I.T.C. No. 61 of 1976 is dismissed in liming.


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