9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Justification of penalty under section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act 2. Applicability of the decision in Sali Maricar's case to the provisions of section 140A post-amendment Analysis: The judgment pertains to an assessee whose major income was from a firm and who filed a return of income for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer noticed non-payment of self-assessment tax as required under section 140A(1) of the Income-tax Act, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 140A(3). The assessee contended that the penalty was not legal citing the decision in Sali Maricar's case. However, the Income-tax Officer emphasized that the provisions of section 140A had been amended post the aforementioned decision. The Appellate Tribunal and Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the penalty. Upon further appeal, the High Court considered the arguments presented. The assessee's counsel asserted that the penalty was unjustified without providing an opportunity to explain the delay in tax payment. Conversely, the Department's standing counsel supported the Tribunal's decision, citing the constitutionality of the amended provisions of section 140A(3) as established in a previous case. The High Court analyzed the timeline of events, noting that the amended provisions of section 140A were applicable to the case. The court highlighted that the decision in Sali Maricar's case was no longer valid post-amendment. Additionally, the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delayed tax payment. Consequently, the court upheld the penalty under section 140A(3), ruling against the assessee and affirming the Tribunal's decision. The judgment emphasized the absence of a reasonable cause as a crucial factor in determining the penalty's validity, ultimately dismissing the assessee's appeal.
|
