COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MAHESHPRASAD GUPTA
1991 P T D 232
[Madhya Pradesh High Court (India)]
Before G. G. Sohani, Actg. C.J. and K.M. Agrawal, J
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
MAHESHPRASAD GUPTA
Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 255 of 1984, decided on 15/02/1989.
Income-tax---
---Reference---Penalty---Delay in furnishing return ---Assessee partner in firm-- Finding by Tribunal that delay in filing return was due to non-finalisation of accounts by firm is a finding of fact.
On the question whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied on the assessee, its finding that there was reasonable cause for the assessee for the delay in filing the return inasmuch as the assessee was unable to ascertain his income till such time as the accounts of the firm of which he was a partner were finalised is a finding of fact.
C.I.T. v. Dwarkadas Moolchand (1982) 134 ITR 392 (MP) fol.
B.K. Rawat for the Commissioner.
H.S. Shrivastava for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
G.G. SOHANI ACTG. C.J.--By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty?"
The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows: For the assessment year 1973-'74, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee for imposition of penalty under clause (a) of section 271(1) of the Act on account of delay in filing the return. The defence of the assessee was that he could not file the return in time as the accounts of the firm of which he was a partner could not be finalised in time. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and imposed the penalty. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in this behalf. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that there was reasonable cause for not filing the return in time and in this view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order imposing penalty on the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion.
Now, the Tribunal has found that the assessee was a partner of a firm, that the partners of the said firm were not properly literate, that the said partners entirely depended upon the munims for finalisation of the accounts and that the assessee had taken necessary steps by changing munims to get the accounts finalised. The Tribunal also found that it was the assessee's first year of account. In view of these facts, the Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. In CIT v. Dwarkadas Moolchand (1982) 134 ITR 392, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the finding that there was reasonable cause for the assessee for the delay in filing the return inasmuch as the assessee was unable to ascertain his income till such time as the accounts of the firm of which he was a partner were finalised, is a finding of fact and no question of law arises in such a case. Following that decision, it must be held that no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal and we, therefore, decline to answer the question referred to this Court for its opinion.
The reference is answered accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
Z.S./758/TOrder accordingly.