Additional Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sanwar Mal

D.K. Kapur, J.—For the assessment year 1961-62, the following two questions have been referred to us : 1. Whether, the return filed by the assessee on, 26th of March, 1966 for the assessment year 1961-62 was within time as prescribed u/s 22 of the income tax Act, 1922 ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1)(a) of the Act could be cancelled on the principle of double jeopardy ?

As far as the first question is concerned the fact was that the return was filed on 26-3-1966 though it was due on 30-6-1961. A penalty was imposed by the ITO u/s 271(1)(a) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act''), on the basis that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. This order was upheld by the AAC but the Tribunal basing itself on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd., held that the penalty was not to be imposed as the return had been filed within the period of four years mentioned in section 139(4) of the Act. 2. On this question the learned counsel has urged that the view of the Tribunal as stated in this case has been largely overruled by a large number of decisions. This Court has also dealt with this point in Addl Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Bhagat Swarup Charanjit Singh and Co., . Following that judgment, we hold that the answer to this question has to be in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Taking up the second question though this is a question of law and might arise if penal interest is imposed under one provision of the Act and penalty under another, we are not at all able to see from any fact appearing on record that this question actually arises. Under the provisions of the Act, the penal interest is imposed by section 139 or some parts thereof and also by way of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) and it could be urged, as has happened in several reported cases that it is a case of double jeopardy. On the facts of the present case we do not find any case of double jeopardy because no penal interest appears to have been imposed against the assessee in this case. We, accordingly, decline to answer this question. The reference is accordingly disposed of. As there is no appearance for the assessee, no costs.