9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty imposition on a minor for delayed filing of returns, justification of penalty under section 271(1)(a), burden of proof for delay in filing returns. Analysis: The judgment addresses the penalty imposition on a minor for delayed filing of returns and the justification of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a minor admitted to a partnership firm, had his affairs managed by his father during his minority. The Income-tax Officer levied penalties for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76, citing delays in filing returns. The Appellate Tribunal upheld penalties for most years, considering the minor's guardian responsible for the delays. The Tribunal found reasonable cause for delay only in the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee challenged the penalties, arguing that as a minor, he couldn't be penalized. However, the court held that under sections 160 and 161 of the Act, the guardian is a representative assessee responsible for filing returns on behalf of the minor. The court referred to a previous case, emphasizing that penalties on minors are essentially on the guardian, who can recover from the minor's estate. The court rejected the argument that penalties couldn't be imposed during the minor's period. The court also addressed the validity of penalty imposition when the minor became a major. It noted that penalties were imposed after the assessee turned major, justifying the imposition. The court emphasized the guardian's duty to file returns on behalf of the minor to prevent income assessment evasion. Regarding the second issue, the court found that the assessee failed to provide explanations for delays in filing returns for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to uphold penalties for these years was deemed correct. For the assessment year 1975-76, the court acknowledged a delay due to finalizing firm accounts, but penalties for the subsequent 21 months lacked explanation. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to restrict penalties to this period. The court reframed the first question to focus on the justification of penalties imposed on the assessee during his minority. It affirmed the Tribunal's decision to uphold penalties. The second question was answered against the assessee, as explanations for delays were lacking. The third question, regarding the burden of proof for delays, was answered against the assessee. Ultimately, no costs were awarded in the case.
|
