Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1975 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1975 (11) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Issues involved: Interpretation of penalty provisions u/s 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure to pay tax within the specified time period.

Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta considered a case involving the interpretation of penalty provisions u/s 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, M/s. Wesman Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd., failed to deposit the required tax amount by the specified deadline due to various reasons, including financial constraints. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,620, which was contested by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that no penalty was justified as no tax amount was payable on the date of penalty imposition. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the penalty was mandatory u/s 140A(1) and should have been levied. The Tribunal held that the penalty was not compulsory and upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 140A, particularly subsection (3), which states that the assessee "shall" be liable for a penalty if tax is not paid on time. The Court noted that while the Income-tax Officer can direct the payment of a penalty, there is no absolute duty to levy one. The section provides the assessee with a right to be heard before a penalty is imposed, indicating that it is not automatic. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Income-tax Officer has the discretion not to impose a penalty.

Regarding the justification of the penalty in this case, the Court observed that the revenue solely relied on the language of the section for imposing the penalty. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified based on the facts and circumstances, which were not challenged as erroneous. Therefore, the Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, concluding that the penalty was not warranted in this instance.

The judgment was delivered by Judge Dipak Kumar Sen, with agreement from Judge Deb.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates