1974 (9) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Validity of penalty under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act for default in payment of advance tax.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference to the High Court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act to determine the validity of a penalty imposed under section 221(1) for default in paying advance tax. The assessee was served with a notice of demand for advance tax but defaulted in payment of the first and second instalments. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty, which was later reduced on appeal. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the penalty, leading to the reference to the High Court. The main issue was whether the term "tax" in section 221(1) includes "advance tax." The Revenue argued that the absence of the words "advance tax" in the section does not exclude it from the purview of the penalty provision. The court analyzed relevant provisions like section 221, which allows for penalty for default in tax payment, and section 220(2), which mentions interest on unpaid tax. The definition of "tax" in section 2(43) was also considered, which includes income tax chargeable under the Act. The court noted that advance tax payment is based on the previous year's assessment and is treated as tax under the Act.

The court further examined the scheme of sections 207 to 219, which deal with advance tax payment, credit, and refunds. It was highlighted that the Income-tax Officer, who determines advance tax payments under section 210, is the competent authority to impose penalties under section 221. The court emphasized that the context of section 221 indicates the Income-tax Officer as the authority to levy penalties for default in advance tax payment. Several precedents were cited to support this interpretation, including Swastik Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax and other relevant cases. The court ultimately concluded that section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act applies to default in payment of advance tax, answering the question in the affirmative in favor of the Revenue. No costs were awarded, and the Advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250.