INCOME-TAX OFFICER Vs. RAJ KUMAR CHAURASIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these three appeals, the department challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 10-2-1982 by which he sets aside the penalties imposed on the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77. The appeals are opposed by the assessee.

(2.) On 26-10-1974 the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1974-75 for the first time. He declared an income of Rs. 5,200 and assessment under section 143(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1981 (the Act) was made on the same day, i.e., 26-101974. Again on 25-11-1974 another return showing an income of Rs. 8000 for the assessment year 1974-75 was filed by the assessee. An assessment on the income of Rs. 9,000 under section 143(3) was made on 6-2-1975. Return for the assessment year 1975-76 showing an income of Rs. 8,500 was filed on 31-7-1975 and return for the assessment year 1976-77 showing an income of Rs. 13,000 was filed on 22-7-1976. On 15-9-1976 the assessee again filed revised returns for all these assessment years, namely 1974-75 to 1976-77. In these revised returns he declared an income of Rs. 23,200 for the assessment year 1974-75, Rs. 45,590 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 15,500 for the assessment year 1976-77. The ITO was of the opinion that the revised returns were filed after certain complaints were received against the assessee by the department and, as such initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of each of the assessment years for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment thereof. In reply to the notices the assessee filed an explanation on 23-2-1980. After examination of the matter, the ITO did not accept the explanation submitted by the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000 for the assessment year 1974-75, Rs. 60,000 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 8,500 for the assessment year 1976-77. Against the imposition of the said penalty, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner ((Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the revised returns were not filed by the assessee on his own volition before any concealment was detected, that the deposits in the banks were surrendered to buy peace with the department, that penalty cannot be levied in respect of the income computed on estimate and that the inclusion of income from cold drinks shop was highly debatable. In this view of the matter, he cancelled the penalties imposed for each of the assessment years. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the department preferred the present appeals to this Tribunal. these are opposed by the assessee.

(3.) The last date for filing the appeals was 25-4-1984 as impugned order was communicated to the ITO on 24-2-982. But these appeals were actually filed on 3-5-1982. As such, there could not be any dispute that these were filed after the period of limitation was over. For condonation of delay in filing these appeals, the department applications in which it was stated that the appeals could not be filed earlier due to the strike started on 16-4-1982 by the officers and staff of the department which ended only in the afternoon of 16-4-1982 by the Officers and staff of the department which ended only in the afternoon of 26-4-1982. Thereafter, it has been stated, the file was proceeded by the ITO and put up before the Commissioner on 27-4-1982 and fair copy of the Commissioners authorisation was signed on 28-4-1982 and was despatched on 29-4-1982 by the ITO and the appeal papers and condonation applications were prepared on the same date, i.e., 30-4-1982. The certified copy of the Commissioner (Appeals)s order and forwarding letter. etc., were prepared on 1-5-1982 which was Saturday. The appeals were sent to the Tribunal by special messenger on Monday, dated 3-4-1982. These facts are verifiable from the materials on record. On perusal of the materials on record, we are satisfied that each day of delay in presentation of the appeals has been satisfactorily explained by the department. As such, we condone the delay in filing of the appeals.