GOENKA R J Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The question referred to us in this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act is as under :

(2.) THE assessee was required to file his return of income latest by 31st July, 1972 in respect of the asst. yr. 1972-73; but in fact filed the same as late as 16th July, 1974. THEre was, thus, a delay of 23 months. THErefore, the ITO started penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act and required the assessee to explain why an appropriate penalty should not be imposed. THE assessee offered his explanation by a letter dt. 27th May, 1975 wherein the only explanation was that his Munim had fallen ill and, therefore, could not finalise the accounts in respect of the relevant assessment year. This explanation was not accepted by the ITO on the ground that the same reason had been forwarded in respect of the earlier assessment year as well. THE ITO, therefore, observed that such an explanation was unacceptable since it could not be believed that the Munim of the assessee would fall ill every time when the filing of the return was due. THE ITO, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,097.

(3.) THE Tribunal agreed with the findings of the ITO and the AAC for not accepting the reason for the delay, as offered by the assessee, particularly since the assessee had failed to tender any material on record to substantiate his explanation. Moreover, it was pointed out by the Department that in respect of the same explanation in respect of the earlier assessment year (which explanation had not been accepted) penalty had been imposed and that penalty had been confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dt. 27th Sept., 1978 in ITA No. 20/Ahd/77-78. THE Tribunal in this context relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs. R. Occhavlal and Co. (1976) 105 ITR 518 (Guj).