- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee mainly on the question of justification for penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').
(2.) THE form of investment in construction of building and installation of plant and machinery had escaped assessment, a was framed under s. 144 of the Act. The assessee filed an application under s. 146 of the Act but still failed to file any assessee was incorrect and on this ground, a sum of Rs. 2,49,955 was added towards the income and addition was also made in respect of understated valuation of machinery and plant. Proceedings for penalty were also initiated. Thereafter, penalty was imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. The said order was affirmed in appeal. The Tribunal also affirmed the penalty, noticing that several opportunities had been given to the assessee and it had been found that the assessee had deliberately not disclosed correct income. Return itself was filed 56 months after the notice under s. 148 of the Act, which justified the imposition of penalty.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no satisfaction recorded that the assessee failed to furnish return without reasonable cause. There is no merit in this contention. The Tribunal in para 9.5 of its order observed : "9.5 Even otherwise, the purpose of allowing an opportunity to the assessee is to enable the assessee to explain the same was late by 56 months. No plea has been taken before me that the assessee had submitted a letter before the AO to treat the original return in response to notice issued under s. 148. Nor, it has been contended that the return filed on accepted. But there is absolutely no explanation either before the authorities below or even before this Bench as to why the assessee could not file the return of income in time. No reasons for delay have at all been given by the assessee. Not a word has been said about the merits of the case. In the case of Smt. Kamla Vati vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 248 (P&H), the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that doctrine of mens rea has no application to the taxing statutes. Where the assessee had failed to furnish a return of income without a reasonable cause, this was sufficient for the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. In the present case, the assessee has failed to do so. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee has no explanation to offer for such inordinate delay. Accordingly, the submissions of the assessee that the penalty has been imposed without allowing an opportunity is without any merit. This ground of appeal is also rejected." ;