9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of penalty for late filing of income tax return for the assessment year 1960-61. Interpretation of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consideration of departmental practice in penalty imposition. Refusal to refer questions of fact to the High Court for opinion. Analysis: The case involved the assessment of a penalty for late filing of an income tax return for the assessment year 1960-61. The respondent-firm filed the return after the due date, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Income-tax Officer. The Officer imposed a penalty, which was later reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and ultimately set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal based on the departmental practice prevailing before the Income-tax Act, 1961 came into force. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa to support its decision. The department, aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, sought a reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court was asked to consider two questions: whether the Tribunal was right in vacating the penalty and whether the Tribunal could presume a departmental practice not to levy penalty for late filing. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had the authority to consider departmental practices, even if not strictly in line with the law, to determine reasonable cause for late filing. Regarding the first question, the High Court emphasized that penalty under section 271(1)(a) is imposable only if there is a failure to file a return without reasonable cause. The Court acknowledged the practice under the old Act of accepting returns filed before the end of the assessment year without penalty. Referring to the Hindustan Steel Ltd. case, the Court highlighted the need for a quasi-criminal proceeding and a discretionary imposition of penalties for statutory obligations. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal did not err in considering the departmental practice and determining reasonable cause for the late filing. The Court clarified that the existence of a reasonable cause in this case was a question of fact, not law. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that it could not be approached for questions of fact but only for questions of law. The Court directed that there would be no order as to costs in the proceedings.
|
