1982 (7) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty provisions under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of penalty imposition on the assessee for failure to furnish an estimate of advance tax.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with two questions of law referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first question involved the misdirection of the Tribunal in holding that the proceedings under section 155 for amending the assessment order were not connected to the regular assessment under section 273. The second question was whether a penalty under section 273(b) could be imposed on the assessee for failing to furnish an estimate of advance tax. The assessee, an individual, was involved in a partnership and had income from independent contract business. The original assessment for the relevant year resulted in a loss, but a revision led to increased income for the assessee, prompting a revision of the assessment order.

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 273(b) due to the assessee's failure to file an income estimate and pay advance tax. The assessee contended that the notice issued by the ITO was not valid as no finding was made regarding the default under section 212 during the original assessment. The ITO argued that the penalty proceedings were justified post the revised assessment. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,000 under section 273(b). The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Authority was dismissed, leading to a further appeal to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal canceled the penalty order, citing the assessee's reasonable cause for not furnishing the estimate of advance tax. It held that penalty proceedings under section 273 should be initiated during regular assessment proceedings, which was not the case here. The Tribunal's finding on the reasonable cause was not challenged. Consequently, the High Court reframed the second question to focus on the permissibility of imposing a penalty under section 273(b) on the assessee. Given the Tribunal's factual finding of reasonable cause, the High Court ruled against the imposition of the penalty, rendering the first question academic and declined to answer it.

The judgment concluded by stating that each party would bear their own costs, with both judges concurring on the decision.