9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Obligation to file the return under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the belief that the income was below the taxable limit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Tribunal had to determine whether the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) was justified. The assessee argued that it had filed the return under section 139(4) and hence should not be penalized for delay. The Income-tax Officer noted that the assessee had not shown any cause to justify the delay and imposed a penalty for nine months' delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to file the return within the time allowed under sections 139(1) and 139(2) without any reasonable cause. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had suffered a loss and could not anticipate that its income would be assessed at a higher figure. Citing the Allahabad High Court decision in CIT v. N. Khan and Brothers, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's belief that its income was below the taxable limit was bona fide. Therefore, it held that this was not a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) and canceled the penalty. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's conclusion, emphasizing that the obligation to file a return under section 139(1) is based on the income the assessee believes to be his income, not the income finally assessed. The High Court noted that the assessee's ultimate acceptance of the assessed income of Rs. 1,19,319 contradicted the claim of bona fide belief in a loss. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in canceling the penalty, answering the first question in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. 2. Obligation to file the return under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The second issue was whether the assessee had an obligation to file the return under section 139(2) despite believing its income was below the taxable limit. The Tribunal had not explicitly addressed this issue, leading to the Revenue's contention that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law. The High Court clarified that once a notice under section 139(2) is served, the assessee is obligated to file the return, irrespective of whether the income is positive or negative. The High Court emphasized that the period of default under section 139(1) ends once a notice under section 139(2) is served. The Tribunal's silence on whether the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the return was noted. The High Court rejected the contention that the second question did not arise from the Tribunal's order, stating that the lower authorities had considered the default under both sections 139(1) and 139(2). The High Court concluded that the assessee's failure to file the return in response to the notice under section 139(2) without showing reasonable cause justified the imposition of penalty. The High Court answered the second question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. Conclusion: The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue on both issues. It held that the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(a) and confirmed the obligation to file the return under section 139(2) despite the assessee's belief of having a non-taxable income. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with statutory requirements and the onus on the assessee to demonstrate reasonable cause for any delay.
|
