Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)Sales Tax Officer vs K. I. Abraham on 7 April, 1967
), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer v. Abraham, [1967] 20 S.T.C. 367, [1967] 3 S.C.R. 518 (S.C.), that the words "in the manner prescribed" would not take in the time element, and, therefore, by filing the return containing the relevant particulars, though out of time, the asses-see has not failed to file the return in the manner prescribed, and, therefore, one of the conditions necessary to be satisfied for imposing the penalty under the sub-section was absent. We are unable to accept this contention. An assessee is required to file the return within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed in order that the Income-tax Officer may complete. the assessment within the period specified in the Income-tax Act. If the return is not filed in time or, if filed in time, it does not contain all the particulars required, it will not be possible for the Income-tax Officer to complete the assessment within the period specified in the Act. In other words, me object of the legislature in insisting upon the assessee filing the return within the time and in the manner prescribed is to enable the Income-tax Officer to complete the assessment within a period of four years as specified in the Act and that object will be frustrated unless the assessee files the return within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed. To carry out the object of the legislature it is necessary to attach a sanction for the failure to fulfil any of the two conditions. If the object is clear, we do not think the use of the conjunctive word " and " in the sub-section is conclusive. The word " and " has generally a cumulative sense, and is thus the antithesis of disjunctive " or " ; but occasionally it is permissible to read "and" as "or" if the context so requires.
Commissioner Of Income Tax West Bengal vs Anwar Ali on 29 April, 1970
the bona fide belief that the return need be filed only after registration was
granted to the firm and that if the firm was treated as an unregistered
firm he need not file any individual return at all. The explanation of the
assessee that he bona fide believed that he need file the return only when
registration was granted to the firm was in a way accepted by the Tribunal
because the Tribunal said that " there are several mitigating circumstances
for the delay in filing the return ". We do not understand what those
mitigating circumstances are, except that the assessee bad reasonable
ground for believing that he need file the return only after registration has
been granted to the firm. As held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner
of Income-ax v. Anwar Ali, [1970] 76 I.T.R. 696 (S.C.), proceedings for imposition of penalty arc
penal in character. And, unless there are materials to show that the
assessee has failed to file the return within the time without reasonable
cause, no penalty can be imposed. The mere failure to file the return
within the time allowed will not make the assessee liable to penalty. The
department must prove that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing it within the time. As we have indicated, the Appellate Tribunal has accepted that there were several mitigating circumstances for the delay in filing the return. Counsel for the revenue referred to Salmond on Jurisprudence, page 395, paragraph 102, and contended that every person is presumed to know the law, and, therefore, the assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. Public policy requires that ignorance of law should be no excuse. But, there is no presumption that every-body knows the law, though it is often so stated.
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [1972] 83 I.T.R. 26, 25 S.T.C. 211 (S.C.), the Supreme Court observed that the order imposing a penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and that penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conscious disregard of its obligation If the assessee here bona fide thought that he need file the return after the firm has been granted registration--that in effect is the finding of the Tribunal, though the Tribunal characterised it only as mitigating circumstance--we do not think that the imposition of the penalty was warranted for the mere failure to furnish the return within the time in the absence of any proof that the assessee acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conscious disregard of its obligation. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing the return within the time allowed, and that the imposition of the penalty was not warranted.
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 14 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
K.I. Abraham vs Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam And Anr. on 29 November, 1963
In other words, counsel for the assessee argued on the basis of the ruling of this court in Abraham v. Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam, [1964] 15 S.T.C. 110 (Ker.