1983 (9) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return.
2. Consideration of advance tax paid by partners in penalty calculation.
3. Interpretation of penalty rate under the relevant statutory provision.
4. Applicability of retrospective amendment on penalty calculation.

Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the late filing of the return by an assessee-firm. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,250 on the firm, leading to an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). The AAC partially allowed the appeal, directing the ITO to consider the tax paid on provisional assessment while calculating the penalty. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal partially, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 to determine that there was no delay warranting penalty. However, the Tribunal rejected other contentions and cross-objections by the Revenue based on legal precedents.

The High Court addressed seven questions referred to them, including the compliance with section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, extension of return filing period, initiation of penalty proceedings, and consideration of advance tax in penalty calculation. The court relied on previous decisions like CIT v. R. S. Deshpande [1982] 136 ITR 1 and CIT v. Abdul Hamid Shah Mohamed [1983] 141 ITR 413 (Bom) to answer the questions conclusively in favor of the Revenue, except for the question regarding the advance tax paid by partners. The court held that the advance tax paid by partners cannot be considered as advance tax payable by the firm for penalty calculation.

Regarding the penalty rate, the court determined that the statutory provision at the relevant time prescribed a flat rate of penalty per month, leaving no discretion to the taxing authority. Additionally, the court addressed the impact of a retrospective amendment on penalty calculation. The amendment substituted "assessed tax" for "tax" and clarified deductions for sums paid as advance tax, negating previous court decisions. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that only tax deducted at source and advance tax paid by the firm were deductible for penalty calculation. The court highlighted that the view taken by the AAC and Tribunal was correct based on the interpretation of the provision at that time, but the subsequent amendment rendered it erroneous. The court directed the Commissioner to recover the costs of the reference from the assessee.