COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. V I ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference arises from the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the belated filing of income-tax return. The penalty levied was sustained in the first appeal. However, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the order in the first appeal on the ground that the assessee had taken the stand that the delay that occurred in filing the return was on account of the delay in auditing the accounts of the firm and therefore there was sufficient cause for the assessee for not filing the return in time. It is against this order of the Tribunal, that the Revenue sought for reference and the Tribunal referred the following question of law for decision by this court :

(2.) WE have heard senior counsel for the Revenue and Sri P. Balakrishnan, counsel for the assessee. Counsel for the Revenue contended that the burden of proof under Section 271(1)(a) was on the assessee to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the return in time and that he has not discharged the same. It is further contended that there is inordinate delay in filing the return and that the Tribunal has not considered relevant facts or decided the case properly.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Revenue contended that the mere delay in auditing the accounts of the firm itself will not justify the assessee in not filing the return in time because the assessee being the managing partner took no interest to get the accounts audited in time. In other words, if the delay in auditing the accounts of the firm is attributable to the assessee, then the assessee has no defence.