BARUAH J K Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This is a reference made by the Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, under S. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, for short "the Act".

(2.) IN compliance with the direction of the High Court made in Civil Rule 1(M) of 1975, the learned Tribunal drew up at statement of the case and forwarded the same, along with the question which the High Court had formulated for determination. We extract the question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or basis for the Tribunal to hold that the penal provisions of the Act under S. 27 l(1)(a) were attracted"?

(3.) IT follows, therefore, that the Tribunal held that there was a long delay, there was no explanation for the delay offered by the assessee either to "the ITO" or to the AAC or before the Tribunal. These factors were considered to be sufficient to bring the case within the purview of s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. IT is undoubtedly true that if there is some delay in filing the return it cannot, by itself, be sufficient to penalise a person. Similarly, if there is delay and the assessee explains the delay which may be reasonably true, the question of penalty may not arise. However, the cumulative effect of the circumstances set forth above was considered by the Tribunal as sufficient to bring the case within the purview of S. 271(1)(a) of "the Act". If an assessee makes default in submitting a return within the prescribed period and offers no explanation at all to the ITO or to the AAC or even before the Tribunal, can it be said that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-furnishing the return as required under the provisions of the law ? The learned Tribunal also took into consideration that the assessee himself submitted his return of income as Rs. 27,620, which was above the taxable limit. Therefore, the assessee had taxable income according to his own calculation. "Absence of reasonable cause" is a sine qua non of the penal provision and mere non-furnishing or delay in furnishing the return is not enough. However, the question is was there any reasonable cause for the failure to furnish the return ? Here is a case when an assessee having taxable income and being obligated to file it within the prescribed period did not furnish the return nor did he furnish any explanation whatsoever for the delay and submitted the return after a long delay of 47 months. The taxable income was not a borderline one. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee offered no explanation for the delay to give it jurisdiction to consider the cause and to do the needful. In this setting, the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that there was "absence of reasonable cause" to furnish the return.