BASHETTIYAVAR Vs. IV I T O HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is disposed at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice and after perusing the records produced by the Revenue.

(2.) Petitioner was assessed for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 by the first respondent-the IV Income Tax Officer, Hubli. For the two relevant assessment years, returns were filed beyond the time specified in the Act i.e,, in the case of the petitioner, 30th June of the calendar years. In the result, proceedings under S. 271 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated and penalty was imposed in respect of two assessment years, i.e., Rs. 2,562 for the year 1975 76 and Rs. 1,560 for the year 1976-77, in accordance with S. 271 (1 A) (i) (a) of the Act.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Commissioner of Income Tax, Dharwar Range, Hubli,-the second respondent herein- in respect of the penalties imposed and in respect of both the assessment years. The appeals came to be dismissed by a common order. Against the dismiisal order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka II, Bangalore-the third respondent. The third respondent allowed the revision in so far as it related to the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that both respondents 1 and 2 had committed an error in rejecting the contention of the assessee inasmuch as for that assessment year, petitioner had presented form No. 6 praying for extension of time to file his return by 30 9 1975, though that form No. 6 praying for extension of time was available in the records. In that view, third respondent came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief and therefore set aside the penalty imposed for assessment year 1975-76. But in respect of assessment year 1976 77 he rejected the contention solely on the ground that there was no material to indicate the sufficient cause pleaded by the assessee on the basis of which respondent 1 could come to the conclusion that sufficient cause existed. The case put forward was that the postal certificate produced by the Assessee evidencing the posting of a cover addressed to the first respondent should be taken as proof of having submitted form No. 6 praying for. extension of time for filing the return for that assessment year till 30-9 1976. The third respondent's reason was that the postal certificate was only proof of a cover being posted, and not of its contents. In the absence of anything on record particularly form No. 6 claimed to have been posted to the first respondent, the penalty imposed by the first respondent did not call for interference.