9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(a) could be imposed after charging interest u/s 139 for delayed submission of return. 2. Whether the Income-tax Officer forfeited his rights to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(a) by not completing the assessment u/s 143(3). 3. Whether a penalty of Rs. 8,680 calculated on the basis of tax as on an unregistered firm could be levied when no tax was payable by it as a registered firm. Summary: Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271(1)(a) and Interest u/s 139 The court held that penalty u/s 271(1)(a) could be imposed even after charging interest u/s 139 for delayed submission of return. The imposition of penalty is not invalidated by the charging of interest. The court noted that the liability to pay penalty is not controlled by the provisions under s. 139(8). The penalty and interest serve different purposes: interest is compensatory, while the penalty is punitive. Issue 2: Forfeiture of Rights to Impose Penalty The court found that the Income-tax Officer did not forfeit his rights to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(a) by not completing the assessment u/s 143(3). The right to impose penalty remains intact unless barred by some law like the law of limitation. Thus, the second question was answered against the assessee. Issue 3: Calculation of Penalty Based on Tax as Unregistered Firm The court held that the penalty of Rs. 8,680 calculated on the basis of tax as on an unregistered firm was valid even though no tax was payable by it as a registered firm. The court noted that under s. 271(2), a registered firm is treated as an unregistered firm for the purpose of penalty calculation. This legal fiction means that the penalty is computed as if the firm were unregistered, regardless of its actual tax status. Conclusion: All questions were answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. The court clarified that the period of default for penalty purposes ends either with the filing of the return or with the assessment of income under s. 144. The provisions are workable and do not suffer from ambiguity. The decisions in Addl. CIT v. Bihar Textiles and Addl. CIT v. Dongarsidas Biharilal were found to be incorrect and were effectively reversed.
|
