M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is disposed at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice and after perusing the records produced by the Revenue. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was assessed for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 by the first respondent-the IV Income Tax Officer, Hubli. For the two relevant assessment years, returns were filed beyond the time specified in the Act i. e,, in the case of the petitioner, 30th June of the calendar years. In the result, proceedings under S. 271 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated and penalty was imposed in respect of two assessment years, i. e. , Rs. 2,562 for the year 1975 76 and Rs. 1,560 for the year 1976-77, in accordance with S. 271 (1 A) (i) (a) of the act. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate commissioner of Income Tax, Dharwar Range, hubli,-the second respondent herein- in respect of the penalties imposed and in respect of both the assessment years. The appeals came to be dismissed by a common order. Against the dismiisal order of the appellate Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner of income Tax, Karnataka II, Bangalore-the third respondent. The third respondent allowed the revision in so far as it related to the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that both respondents 1 and 2 had committed an error in rejecting the contention of the assessee inasmuch as for that assessment year, petitioner had presented form No. 6 praying for extension of time to file his return by 30 9 1975, though that form No. 6 praying for extension of time was available in the records. In that view, third respondent came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief and therefore set aside the penalty imposed for assessment year 1975-76. But in respect of assessment year 1976 77 he rejected the contention solely on the ground that there was no material to indicate the sufficient cause pleaded by the assessee on the basis of which respondent 1 could come to the conclusion that sufficient cause existed. But in respect of assessment year 1976 77 he rejected the contention solely on the ground that there was no material to indicate the sufficient cause pleaded by the assessee on the basis of which respondent 1 could come to the conclusion that sufficient cause existed. The case put forward was that the postal certificate produced by the assessee evidencing the posting of a cover addressed to the first respondent should be taken as proof of having submitted form no. 6 praying for. extension of time for filing the return for that assessment year till 30-9 1976. The third respondent's reason was that the postal certificate was only proof of a cover being posted, and not of its contents. In the absence of anything on record particularly form No. 6 claimed to have been posted to the first respondent, the penalty imposed by the first respondent did not call for interference. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel Sri Katageri, appearing for the assessee- writ petitioner, has strenuously argued that respondent 3 erred in not accepting the postal evidence of having sent form No. 6 solely on the basis of the writing on the certificate to the effect M/s, Bashettyyar Bros. , with 6 partners, form No. 6'. It is further urged that the third respondent derived no support from this writing on the postal certificate which was to be found in the records produced by the Revenue. The postal certificate is filled at the requisite places by typewriting. It says under class of articles : Cover, address of the first respondent is typed out. On the top right corner the stamp is affixed and the same is cancelled by the postal seal. At the bottom also under the column class of articles the word 'cover' is typed out. But the endorsement explained above is in hand-writing in ink. It is common knowledge that postal authorities do not certify the contents of the cover. It is only the act of posting of a class of article which is certified and not as to what the article posted contains. Unless by a different procedure the postal matter is insured stating as to what the cover contains and for what value it is estimated and what insurance premium is required to be paid, it is impossible to know the contents. Unless by a different procedure the postal matter is insured stating as to what the cover contains and for what value it is estimated and what insurance premium is required to be paid, it is impossible to know the contents. Similarly, in the case of letters sent by registered post for acknowledgement due it only ensures the delivery of the posted matter, its acknowledgement by the addressee and does not ensure or certify as to what the cover contained. I have already pointed out that certificate of posting is only meant for proving the act of posting and no more. The endorsement in hand-writing appears to have been an after-thought. I, tuere- fore, must hold that the third respondent was right in holding that sufficient cause for not filing the return tried to be made out on that basis of 1976-77 was not acceptable. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, this is not a case in which this Court should interfere as there is no apparent errors, legal or factual, in the order of the third respondent which is produced at annexure 'd' to the petition. ( 6 ) ALTERNATIVE argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the third respondent should have considered the past conduct of the assessee petitioner and come to the conclusion that there was no wilful delay on the part of the assessee particularly when the petitioner had co-operated with the department in the assessment proceedings. He contended that the burden of proving that there was no sufficient cause is on the department I am not able to agree. We have in the limitation Act (S. 5) power given to the court to condone the delay only if sufficient cause is shown by the party who is approaching the Court belatedly. It cannot be said that the Court has the burden to prove the sufficient cause and not the party who approaches it. The same principle governs S. 271 (1) (a) of the Act. In so far as the other contention that the conduct of the petitioner should have been taken into account by the third respondent, it overlooks that 3rd respondent was exercising jurisdiction under s. 264 of the Act and not- under S. 273-A of the Act. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition is dismissed. In so far as the other contention that the conduct of the petitioner should have been taken into account by the third respondent, it overlooks that 3rd respondent was exercising jurisdiction under s. 264 of the Act and not- under S. 273-A of the Act. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition is dismissed. Standing counsel for Revenue is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .