9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competency of the Tribunal to reduce penalty below the statutory limit under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the Tribunal's authority to reduce the penalty below the statutory limit prescribed in section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved a delay in filing the return by the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77, leading to the imposition of a penalty by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) canceled the penalty, finding reasonable cause for the delay, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalty, albeit reducing it to Rs. 1,000 from the prescribed amount of Rs. 6,908. The crux of the matter was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to lower the penalty below the statutory limit. The court emphasized that under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if an assessee fails to furnish the return without reasonable cause, a penalty is leviable as per the prescribed rate. The section mandates that the penalty imposed should not be less or more than what is specified. The court highlighted that once the authority concludes that a penalty is warranted under the provisions of section 271(1)(a), it is obligated to impose the penalty as prescribed by the statute. The court referred to various High Court decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330, which supported the view that the penalty cannot be reduced below the statutory limit set by the section. Ultimately, the court held that the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty to Rs. 1,000 was not legally sustainable. As the assessing authority had determined that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return and the Tribunal had confirmed the penalty, the court concluded that the penalty should not be lower than the statutory prescription. Therefore, the questions referred to the court were answered in the negative, favoring the Department.
|
