9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity and jurisdiction of penalty under section 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. Legality of canceling penalty by the Tribunal based on the competence of the officer to invoke section 9. Detailed Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The issue revolves around the levy of a penalty under section 9 of the Surtax Act on an assessee, Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd., for late filing of the return for the assessment year 1967-68. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,200 under section 9(a) of the Surtax Act due to the delay in filing the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, but the Tribunal intervened, citing that the Income-tax Officer lacked the competence to invoke section 9 for penalizing the late filing of the return. The Department sought reference of two questions to the High Court, which the Tribunal dismissed, leading to the present petition. The judgment delves into the provisions of sections 5 and 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Section 5 mandates companies to file returns of chargeable profits before September 30 of the assessment year, with a provision for the Assessing Officer to extend the deadline. Section 5(3) allows an assessee to file a return before the assessment is completed if not done within the specified time. On the other hand, section 9 empowers the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty if an assessee fails to furnish the return without reasonable cause. Notably, the penalty is linked to the failure to file a return, not to late filing before the assessment is made. The judgment draws parallels from decisions of various High Courts, such as the Calcutta High Court, Allahabad High Court, and Delhi High Court, which interpreted similar provisions in other tax laws. These courts emphasized that penalties under section 9 are applicable only for the failure to file a return, not for delayed filing before assessment completion. They highlighted that if a return is filed before the assessment is finalized, there is no default in complying with section 5 requirements, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties under section 9. The courts stressed that penal provisions are not attracted if the return is filed within the permissible timeframe before assessment finalization. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, concurring with the interpretations of other High Courts and emphasizing that section 9 does not provide for penalties solely for late filing of returns before assessment completion. As long as the return is filed before assessment finalization and the assessment is based on that return, the penal provisions of section 9 do not apply. The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between failure to file a return and delayed filing before assessment completion to determine the applicability of penalties under section 9.
|
