1979 (4) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of penal interest and penalty for late filing of tax returns.
2. Discrepancy in the filing dates of tax returns as claimed by the assessee and the department.
3. Admissibility of additional evidence in the form of a certificate of posting.
4. Justification of the Tribunal's findings regarding the filing dates of tax returns.
5. Department's appeal against the Tribunal's decision and the subsequent applications filed.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to three connected cases involving the assessment of penal interest and penalty for late filing of tax returns. The cases revolve around the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, where the assessee claimed to have filed the returns on May 4, 1963, while the department contended that the returns were filed on October 7, 1966. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) calculated penal interest and penalty based on the department's assertion. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), resulting in varied outcomes across the cases.

Subsequently, the Appellate Tribunal overturned the AAC's decision in one case, accepting the assessee's claim that the returns were filed on May 4, 1963. This decision was based on additional evidence presented by the assessee, including a certificate of posting. The department, dissatisfied with the Tribunal's findings, filed applications to refer questions of law to the High Court under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The High Court dismissed the department's applications, emphasizing that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the filing dates was a question of fact. The court noted that while the department argued the evidence pointed to a different conclusion, the Tribunal was within its rights to accept the assessee's evidence and interpretation. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was based on evidence and inference, making it inappropriate for the court to intervene.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the department's applications, stating that the Tribunal's findings were not without evidence or irrationality. The court highlighted that the decision-making process was within the Tribunal's purview, and there was no need for further intervention.