9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of penalty provisions under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Consideration of reasonable cause for late filing of returns. - Application of retrospective amendment to penalty computation. - Presumption of extended time for filing returns under section 139 of the Act. - Tribunal's authority to set aside Income-tax Officer's orders. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision to strike down penalty orders instead of allowing the Income-tax Officer to rectify them. The case involved late filing of returns for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, leading to show-cause notices for penalty under section 271(1)(a). Initially, relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Income-tax Officer levied nil penalty. However, a retrospective amendment changed the penalty computation method. Subsequently, penalties of Rs. 1,635 and Rs. 4,355 were imposed for the respective years. The Appellate Tribunal, following a previous court decision, found the penalties illegal due to the absence of a finding on the lack of reasonable cause for late filing. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in relying on a reversed decision and argued that mens rea need not be proven for penalty under section 271(1)(a). The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on this argument. Further, it was debated whether the Income-tax Officer's charging of interest under section 139 implied an extension of time for filing returns, thus negating the penalty provision. The Revenue objected to considering this argument at the appellate stage due to its absence earlier. However, the court presumed the time extension based on the interest charged, concluding that the returns were filed within the extended period, rendering the penalty inapplicable. Despite finding the Tribunal's legal basis flawed, the court upheld its decision due to the circumstances of the case. The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing the importance of the extended filing period presumption. The court answered the reference question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded. Additionally, the court directed the Tribunal to make separate references for the two appeals involved.
|
