| Case ID |
f8d170a5-c2f6-4d65-8f15-02a3ed320579 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 22 OF 1973 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 17, 1975 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Gauhati High Court upheld the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the late filing of the return for the assessment year 1958-59. The court found that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had reasonably presumed that the assessee had no reasonable ground for failing to furnish the return on time. The burden of proof shifted to the assessee to rebut this presumption, which he failed to do. The court ruled that the penalty proceedings were legally initiated, and the penalty was validly imposed. The decision emphasized that in penalty proceedings under section 271, the department is not required to prove the absence of reasonable cause beyond a reasonable doubt, but only to establish a prima facie case against the assessee. |
| Summary |
In the case of Hanutram Ramprasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Gauhati High Court addressed the issue of penalties for late filing of income tax returns under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the assessment year 1958-59, where the assessee failed to submit his return by the due date. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under sections 274 and 271, requiring the assessee to explain why a penalty should not be imposed for this failure. The court found that the ITO's presumption of no reasonable cause for the delay was justified, especially since the reasons for the delay were not disclosed by the assessee. The judgment clarified that while the burden of proof generally lies with the party asserting a claim, in cases where the facts are within the special knowledge of one party, the burden may shift. The court ultimately upheld the validity of the penalty imposed, reaffirming the need for timely compliance with tax obligations. |
| Court |
Gauhati High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
B.N. Sarma,
Baharul Islam
|
| Lawyers |
S.K. Sen,
S.C. Tebriwal,
A.R. Paul Mazumdar,
G.K. Talukdar,
D.K. Talukdar
|
| Petitioners |
Hanutram Ramprasad
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
1978 SLD 564,
(1978) 112 ITR 187
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas [1958] 34 ITR 98 (Bom.),
CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC),
Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 540 (SC),
D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC),
CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC),
Addl. CIT v. Santosh Industries [1974] 93 ITR 563 (Guj.),
Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC),
CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696(SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(a),
260,
256
|