2005 (6) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 272A(2) Failure to file statement in Form No. 52A for each of the assessment year within 30 days from the expiry of the financial year. - In response to the SCN he explained that it was his first and last venture which had flopped and due to the ignorance of legal formalities he could not submit the statements. - Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessment Officer holding that due to the ignorance of the provisions of law he had failed to submit the statements and as soon as he came to know about the requirement he had submitted the same - Whether Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1, 40, 000 levied under section 272A(2) read with section 285B of the Income-tax Act? - there is a rule that ignorance of law is no excuse but there is no presumption that every one knows the law Held that Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of penalty

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty under section 272A(2) read with section 285B of the Income-tax Act based on ignorance of legal requirements.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 272A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent, engaged in film production, failed to file statements as required under section 285B, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, considering the respondent's explanation that the failure was due to ignorance of legal formalities, and not intentional or negligent. The Revenue raised the substantial question of law regarding the justification of deleting the penalty.

The respondent's explanation for not filing the statements was that it was his first and unsuccessful venture in film production, and he was unaware of the legal requirement to submit statements within the specified timeframe. Upon receiving the show-cause notice, he promptly submitted the statements. The Tribunal found the explanation reasonable, emphasizing that no tax was due from the respondent. The appellant argued that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but the court referred to legal precedents to highlight that there is no presumption that everyone knows the law.

Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, the court emphasized that penalties for failure to fulfill statutory obligations should be imposed judiciously, especially in cases where the breach stems from a bona fide belief or lack of deliberate defiance of the law. Considering the respondent's explanation and the legal principles discussed, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the penalty imposed by the Assessment Officer.

In conclusion, the court answered the substantial question of law in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appeal and affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all relevant circumstances and exercising discretion judiciously when imposing penalties for statutory non-compliance.