B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.@mdashWe are unable to see any substance in this writ petition. The writ petition is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax made u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant facts are the following :
The petitioner is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1975-76, the return ought to have been filed on or before July 31, 1975. (The relevant previous accounting year ended on June 21, 1974). It appears that the petitioner applied for extension of time for filing the return on three occasions. The time was asked finally till November 30, 1975 ; of course, no orders appear to have been passed upon these applications for extension of time. Be that as it may, the return was filed on December 19, 1975, disclosing an income of Rs. 4,57,215. Assessment was completed computing the petitioner''s income as Rs. 4,59,000. Proceedings were initiated both u/s 271(1)(a) for levying penalty and also u/s 139(8) for levying interest for the late filing of the return. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Penalty proceedings were dropped by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that the penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the onus of proving mens rea on the part of the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer. Since, in this case, mens rea was not established, he dropped the proceedings. So far as interest is concerned, he levied the interest. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under Rule 117A of the Income Tax Rules to waive the interest. This was rejected, against which the petitioner approached the Commissioner by way of revision u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner rejected the same under the impugned order.
2. The question in this case is whether the petitioner has established that he was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within time within the meaning of Clause (4) of Rule 117A. The petitioner''s case was that his munim was suffering from infective hepatitis from December 20, 1974, till about March 3, 1975. The certificate of the doctor produced by the petitioner supported the said fact. The Commissioner of Income Tax did not disbelieve the said certificate. What he said was that even if the said certificate was true, there was ample time for the petitioner to file his return. It may be seen that the illness of the munim was only till March 3, 1975. There was ample time for the petitioner to file the return which was due by July 31, 1975.
3. We cannot, therefore, say that the reasons given by the Commissioner for rejecting the revision are not relevant and genuine. We cannot also say that the Commissioner has not applied his mind to the relevant facts of this case. We find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
