AMRITLAL SOMABHAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee by the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, referring certain questions of law said to arise from its order in Income-tax Appeal No. 12152 of 1965-66, dated July 8, 1970, pertaining to the assessment year 1959-60, to the High Court for its opinion, namely:

(2.) THE assessee is a partner in a registered firm styled "M/s. Chhotalal Keshavram, Rajnandgaon". In the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant accounting year being October 24, 1957, to November 12, 1958, the assessee was served with a notice by the ITO, Rajnandgaon, under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, to file a return of his income on July 6, 1959. Despite the notice, the assessee did not file the return till March 28, 1961, when the return should actually have been filed on August 11, 1959, i.e., after a delay of nearly 19 months. THE assessee filed his return on March 28, 1961, while the firm filed its return on March 29, 1961, On March 5, 1964, the ITO, Rajnandgaon, made assessment under Section 23(3) of the 1922 Act, computing the assessee's share income to be Rs. 52,494. THEreafter, on March 10, 1964, the assessee was served with a notice by the ITO, under Section 274, read with Section 271(l)(a) of the Act to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. In response to the notice, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any explanation for the late filing of the return. THE ITO, accordingly, by his order dated December 19, 1964, imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,610 under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. On appeal, the AAC of Income-tax, Raipur Range, Raipur, by his order dated November 1, 1965, upheld the order of the ITO. On further appeal, the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, by its order dated July 8, 1970, declined to interfere with the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act.

(3.) IN view of their Lordships' decision in Jain Brothers v. Union of INdia [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC), the point that no penalty could be levied under Section 271(l)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for a default committed under Section 28(l)(a) of the INdian I.T. Act, 1922, was not pressed before the Tribunal.