9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Justifiability of the penalty imposed under Section 140A(3) for non-payment of self-assessed tax within the stipulated time. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner argued that Section 140A(3) was ultra vires as it violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and was not saved by Article 19(5). The petitioner relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Sali Maricar v. ITO, which held that the penalty under Section 140A(3) was confiscatory and an unreasonable restriction on the right to property. However, the court noted that the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) were deleted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, but since the writ petition was filed in 1974, the rights available prior to the amendment would still apply. The court then examined the validity of Section 140A(3) and observed that other High Courts, including Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir, had dissented from the Madras High Court's view. These courts held that the penalty provision was a measure to ensure compliance with tax payment and was not confiscatory. The court agreed with these views, stating that the penalty was intended to secure compliance with tax obligations and was not an unreasonable restriction on the right to retain income. 2. Justifiability of the Penalty Imposed under Section 140A(3): The petitioner contended that the penalty should not have been imposed as the company was under the control of the State Government, managed by an IAS Officer, and the non-payment was not due to contumacious conduct or dishonest intention. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the company did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which held that penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is quasi-criminal and should not be imposed unless the conduct was contumacious or dishonest. The court noted that the Tribunal failed to consider the explanation provided by the company regarding the State Government's control and the administrator's role. The court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) must exercise discretion reasonably and consider all circumstances before imposing a penalty. The court concluded that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the company's explanation and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the imposition of the penalty, directing it to take into account all the facts and circumstances. Conclusion: The writ petition was partly allowed. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 31, 1973, was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the penalty, considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
