Gujarat High Court
R.J. Goenka vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: [1994]207ITR824(GUJ)
JUDGMENT Y.B. Bhatt, J.
1. The question referred to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as under :
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 22,097 further reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is leviable under section 271(1)(a) of the assessee ?"
2. The assessee was required to file his return of income latest by July 31, 1972, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73; but in fact filed the same as late as July 16, 1974. There was, thus, a delay of 23 months. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer started penalty proceedings under section 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 dated May 27, 1975, wherein the only explanation for the delay 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 Income-tax Officer on the ground that the same reason had been forwarded in respect of the earlier assessment year as well. The Income-tax Officer, 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 Income-tax Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,097.
3. The assessee then appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while agreeing with the findings of the Income-tax Officer on the flimsiness of the reason for the delay tendered by the assessee, further observed that although assessee had filed an application for extension of time up to October 31, 1972, there was no further application for extension. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, upheld the order of penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer, but directed that the penalty be computed taking the default from October 31, 1972, onwards.
4. In second appeal before the Tribunal, the very same reasons were pressed into service by the assessee.
5. The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner 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 dated September 27, 1978, in Income-tax Appeal No. 20/(Ahd) of 1977-78. The Tribunal, in this context relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. R. Ochhavlal and Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518 (Guj).
6. In the context of these facts, it appears to us that the question referred to us is not really a question of law, but is merely a question whether the material on record, or rather the inference and conclusions drawn by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of "no material on record," has been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is entirely correct, and, therefore, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. This reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.