BANSIDHAR PRADHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner contends that he derives income from plying a truck which is his only source of income. He filed returns of income for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74 voluntarily under Section 139(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on October 16, 1973. While making an enquiry about some motor vehicle case, he was advised by his advocate to file his income-tax returns, notwithstanding the fact that whatever amount he earned was paid in instalments, as the same was liable to be assessed for the purpose of income-tax and, accordingly, he filed his returns for the aforesaid years. THEreafter, the ITO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act asking him to file returns for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. This notice was served on him on October 18, 1973, and, accordingly, he filed his returns on October 22, 1973, showing the incomes which were not liable for assessment. Penal proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) were started against the petitioner and interest was also charged under Sections 139 and 217 for delay in submitting the returns and for non-payment of advance tax. THE petitioner filed an application before the ITO under Sections 139(8) and 215(4) of the Act for waiver of interest. THE ITO, after considering the reasons given by the petitioner for the delay in filing the returns and for non-payment of advance tax, waived the interest charged against him. THE reaspns stated by the petitioner for the delay in submitting the returns were accepted by the ITO and the petitioner also filed the petition for holding that no penalty should be imposed. It was contended that the factors that constituted a " sufficient cause " for the purpose of Section 139(8) also amounted to a " reasonable cause " for the purpose of Section 271(1)(a) of the Act and no penalty should be imposed. Though the imposition of interest was waived, yet the ITO held that the petitioner was liable to pay penalty. As against this order, the petitioner went in appeal before the AAC, but the appeal was dismissed. THE petitioner also filed a revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax and the revision was also dismissed. THE petitioner has, therefore, filed this application on the ground that the learned Commissioner has not considered the grounds mentioned in the petition and, as such, the order amounts to an illegal exercise of jurisdiction.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of the Revenue, it is contended that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted on the ground of ignorance of law and, however wrong the order of the Commissioner may be, the said order cannot be interfered with.