1981 (2) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: The judgment involves the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the respondent-assessee for delayed submission of the income tax return for the assessment year 1961-62.

Imposition of Penalty: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to the delayed submission of the income tax return by the assessee. The penalty was imposed by the ITO under section 271(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 18,306. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal raising various contentions, including the argument that no penalty was leviable based on a Supreme Court decision and that the penalty was imposed without considering a reply filed by the assessee. However, the Tribunal rejected most contentions except the one based on the Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal held that if section 22(3) was complied with, section 22(1) must also be considered complied with.

Legal Interpretations: Various High Courts, including the Madras, Gujarat, Calcutta, Patna, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, have held that the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(a) for delayed submission of the return is not precluded even if a return is filed under section 139(4) of the Act. The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court also rejected the argument that a return filed under section 139(4) should be deemed to have been filed within the time allowed under section 139(1) to avoid penalty under section 271(1)(a). The Allahabad High Court emphasized that the time limit under section 139(4) has no relevance to the accrual of default attracting penalty under section 271(1)(a).

Court Decision: The High Court, after considering various decisions and legal principles, held that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in a previous case cannot be extended to the context of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the department that the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was justified in this case. The Court highlighted that interpreting the statute in a manner that renders any provision redundant should be avoided. The Court also referred to previous decisions indirectly related to the issue, supporting the decision to uphold the penalty imposition.

Conclusion: The High Court answered the question referred to it in the negative and in favor of the department, affirming the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(a) on the respondent-assessee. The department was awarded costs, including counsel's fee of Rs. 300.