1980 (12) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Registration of the assessee-firm.
2. Applicability of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) for late filing of return.
3. Interpretation of sections 271(1)(i) and 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

1. Registration of the Assessee-Firm:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64, confirming that the assessee was a genuine firm and entitled to registration.

2. Applicability of Penalty u/s 271(1)(a) for Late Filing of Return:
The assessee filed a belated return on May 28, 1966, for the assessment year 1963-64. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) initiated penal action u/s 271(1)(a) and levied a penalty of Rs. 9,777. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) cancelled the penalty order, holding that no tax was payable by the assessee-firm for the assessment year at the relevant time. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's order, stating that the taxpayer was not in arrears and had paid more than the tax payable by way of advance tax.

3. Interpretation of Sections 271(1)(i) and 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal referred the question of whether the provisions of sections 271(1)(i) and 271(2) justified the cancellation of the penalty. The court held that the provisions of sections 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(i) must be read together to determine liability to penalty. A person is liable to penalty if they fail to submit a return without reasonable cause and do not pay their tax in the manner provided. The court concluded that the assessee, having paid the assessed tax in advance, was not liable to penalty. The court also clarified that section 271(2) applies to registered firms only when they are liable to penalty under section 271(1)(a) read with section 271(1)(i). The court rejected the revenue's contention that section 271(2) overrides section 271(1)(i) and concluded that the non obstante clause in section 271(2) is limited to treating a registered firm as an unregistered firm for penalty purposes.

Conclusion:
The court answered the questions in the affirmative and against the revenue, holding that section 271(2) was not applicable in this case, and the taxpayer had no tax liability for the assessment year 1963-64. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, and no costs were ordered.