9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Assessment of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) for assessment year 1961-62 and u/s 273(a) for assessment year 1964-65.
Assessment Year 1961-62: The assessee disclosed income under a voluntary disclosure scheme, but failed to file a return of income initially. The Income-tax Officer levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(a) for not filing the return. The court held that failure to furnish a return without reasonable excuse is sufficient to attract penalty u/s 271(1)(a), irrespective of mens rea. The court referred to a previous decision that supported this interpretation. Assessment Year 1964-65: For this assessment year, the assessee filed an estimate of advance tax which was lower than the actual income later disclosed. The Income-tax Officer levied a penalty u/s 273(a) for furnishing an untrue estimate. The court analyzed the definition of "regular assessment" and concluded that assessment or reassessment u/s 147 does not fall under sections 143 or 144, hence not considered regular assessment. The court disagreed with the revenue's argument that reassessment u/s 147 should be treated as regular assessment based on the notice requirements under section 148. The court referred to past judicial interpretations and held that the definition of "regular assessment" in section 2(40) of the Income-tax Act should be followed. Therefore, the penalty u/s 273(a) was not justified for the assessment year 1964-65. This judgment clarifies the application of penalties u/s 271(1)(a) and u/s 273(a) in cases of failure to file returns and furnishing untrue estimates, respectively, based on the interpretation of "regular assessment" under the Income-tax Act.
|
