Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For late filing of return - Whether posting of a valid return to ITO within prescribed time under certificate of posting is sufficient evidence of return having been filed within time and department cannot levy penalty under section 271(1)(a) on the ground that such return was not received - Held, on facts, yes Section 27 of the general clauses act, 1897 and section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Presumption of service of notice, etc. - Whether posting of valid income-tax return within time under certificate of posting to ITO will give rise to presumption of proper and effective submission of return to ITO within time - Held, yes Facts In response to a notice issued under section 139(2), the assessee filed a return before the ITO with a remark 'duplicate' mentioned at the top of the return. As there was delay in filing the return, the ITO levied penalty under section 271(1)(a). On appeal to the AAC, the assessee contended that the original return for the assessment year in question was sent to the ITO under certificate of posting. In support of its claim, the assessee produced its peon book which bore a post office stamp against the entry 'one cover containing income-tax return for the year ending 3-3-1965'. Relying on this piece of evidence, the AAC held that the original return was filed in time. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that posting of valid return within time allowed, under certificate of posting was sufficient evidence of the return having been filed within time and, therefore, it upheld the order of the AAC. On reference : Held From the facts of the instant case, it would appear that the evidence produced by the assessee raised a presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as well as under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act of proper and effective submission of return to the ITO and the return having been duly despatched through the post office, admittedly within the time as envisaged by the Act, there did not seem to be any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty levied by the ITO under section 271(1)(a) . Case review Harihar Banerji v.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492