9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for late filing of returns. 2. Interpretation of the term "assessed tax" and its application in penalty calculation. 3. Application of sub-section (2) of section 271 in case of a registered firm for penalty calculation. 4. Conflict of opinion among various High Courts on the issue. Analysis: The judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dealt with the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for late filing of returns for the years 1984-85 to 1988-89. The dispute arose when the appellant, who filed belated returns, challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The court analyzed the provisions of section 271, which include clauses (a), (b), and (c) dealing with failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, and concealment of income, respectively. The appellant's case fell under clause (a) for late filing of returns, leading to the quantification of penalty under clause (i)(b) at two per cent of the assessed tax for every month of default. Regarding the interpretation of the term "assessed tax," the court considered the definition provided in the Explanation, which reduced the tax by the sum paid in advance under Chapter XVIIC. The appellant, a registered firm, had paid advance tax exceeding the tax ultimately assessed, causing a discrepancy in penalty calculation. The court applied sub-section (2) of section 271, stating that the penalty for a registered firm should be calculated at the rate applicable to an unregistered firm, leading to a different penalty amount compared to the registered firm rate. The judgment highlighted a conflict of opinion among various High Courts on the issue, with some courts favoring the assessee's interpretation. The court referenced previous decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and other courts to support its stance. The appellant's counsel argued for a different interpretation of the statutory provisions, emphasizing the absence of assessed tax due to advance tax exceeding the liability for a registered firm. However, the court upheld the earlier decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissing the appeal and affirming the penalty imposition based on the consistent view taken by the court. Additionally, the court addressed the appellant's reliance on a Supreme Court decision regarding the levy of interest, distinguishing between interest as compensation and penalty. The court rejected the appellant's argument based on a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, emphasizing that the circular did not support the appellant's case. Ultimately, the court upheld the impugned decision of the learned single judge, following the court's previous rulings and denying the appeal without costs.
|
