2009 (12) TMI 993 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of penalty imposed u/s. 272 A (2) (c) of the Income Tax Act for delay in furnishing annual returns of tax deduction at source u/s. 206, focusing on the expressions "deductible" or "collectible" and the requirement of timely submission of returns for the financial years 1990-1991, 1993-1994, and 1994-1995.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Interpretation of Penalty Provision:
The Assessing Officer imposed penalties for delays in filing annual returns of tax deduction at source, despite tax being deducted and deposited on time. The Commissioner of Income Tax upheld the penalties, citing the proviso to section 272 A which limits penalties to the amount of tax "deductible" or "collectible." The Tribunal also confirmed the penalties, rejecting arguments of ignorance of law and absence of tax deductible or collectible.

2. Arguments and Considerations:
In the appeal, the applicant argued that the delay was due to ignorance of the law and absence of tax deductible or collectible. The Tribunal, however, upheld the penalties based on the failure to file returns within the prescribed period, disregarding the reasons provided by the Executive Engineer responsible for the filings.

3. Justification for Penalty:
The applicant contended that as the tax was deducted and deposited on time, the penalty for late filing should not apply, especially considering the lack of loss to the Revenue and absence of unlawful gain. Section 273 B of the Act allows for penalties to be waived in certain circumstances, including reasonable cause for the failure to act.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal's decision to levy penalties for late filing, despite no loss of Revenue and timely tax deposits, was deemed unjustified. The purpose of the penalty provision is to ensure compliance, not punishment, especially when there is no financial impact on the department. The Tribunal failed to consider if there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns.

5. Judgment:
The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that there was no justification for the penalty for late filing of returns when the tax was deducted and deposited within the stipulated period. The penalty order was deemed unwarranted, and the question referred was answered in favor of the assessee. No costs were awarded in the judgment.