1999 (11) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'assessed tax' in s. 271(1)(i)(b) of the IT Act, 1961.
Calculation of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) for a registered firm treated as an unregistered firm.
Applicability of s. 271(2) in determining penalty for defaulting registered firms.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal referred questions regarding the interpretation of 'assessed tax' in s. 271(1)(i)(b) and the calculation of penalty for a registered firm treated as an unregistered firm. The Tribunal's view was that the advance tax payable by the unregistered firm should be deducted while calculating the penalty, irrespective of whether it was paid or not. The Tribunal relied on the non obstante clause in s. 271(2) to support its interpretation. It also referenced a judgment of the Madras High Court for support.

2. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that the Tribunal read into the provisions notions that were not present. The Court highlighted that the Explanation in s. 271(1) defines 'assessed tax' and requires deduction of advance tax paid. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's view would expose the assessee to higher penalties without provision for deducting tax. The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning incompatible with the language and purpose of s. 271(2) and emphasized the need to harmoniously read the provisions.

3. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions, emphasizing that the penalty for a registered firm is the same as that for an unregistered firm under s. 271(2). The Court clarified that 'assessed tax' as defined in the Explanation requires deduction of advance tax paid. The Court rejected the notion that advance tax payable but not paid by the unregistered firm should be deducted, as it goes against the express language of the provision.

4. The Court distinguished the Tribunal's reliance on a judgment involving a different provision (s. 280-O) from the present case. The Court highlighted the specific language and intent of s. 271(1) and concluded that the Tribunal's interpretation was not supported by the law. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, answering the questions negatively and disposing of the reference cases accordingly.