9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the imposition of penalty for late submission of income tax return under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the validity of applications made for extension of time for filing the return, and the duty of the Income Tax Officer to render a decision on such applications. Imposition of Penalty: The assessee, a registered partnership firm, was required to file its income tax return for the assessment year 1968-69 by June 30, 1968, but filed it on November 7, 1968, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,83,962. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act due to the delay. The assessee contended that it had made multiple applications for extension of time, had paid higher tax than required, and had not acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 25,494, which was enhanced to Rs. 27,830 by the Appellate Authority. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) held that the penalty could not be sustained as the ITO failed to render a decision on the extension applications, leading the assessee to believe the extension was granted. The Tribunal quashed the penalty, leading to the Revenue challenging this decision. Validity of Extension Applications: The applications for extension of time for filing the return were made in Form No. 6 on behalf of the assessee. The Revenue argued that since the applications were not signed by the authorized person, the ITO could ignore them. However, the court held that the ITO had a statutory duty to entertain and decide on such applications, either granting or rejecting them for valid reasons. The ITO's failure to render a decision on the applications did not justify penalizing the assessee for late filing. Duty of the Income Tax Officer: The court emphasized that the ITO must exercise discretion fairly and reasonably when deciding on extension applications. The ITO cannot ignore properly made applications or refuse to use discretion, as it is his duty to entertain and decide on such requests. The court cited a previous decision to establish that penalty for late filing can only be imposed if the assessee acted deliberately in defiance of the law or without reasonable cause. In this case, the ITO's failure to decide on the extension applications led to the assessee's reasonable belief that the extension was granted, justifying the late filing without penalty. In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act could not be sustained in this case. The court answered all questions in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of the ITO's duty to render decisions on extension applications and the requirement for establishing deliberate non-compliance for imposing penalties.
|
