9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of condonation of delay u/s 139(1) when notice u/s 139(2) is issued to the assessee, and the computation of default period for penalty assessment. Condensation of Delay u/s 139(1): The case involved a firm engaged in silk business which failed to file its income tax return by the due date. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice u/s 139(2) allowing 30 days for filing the return, but the return was filed after a delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the default for penalty calculation should be limited to the delay from the notice date. The Tribunal also agreed, stating that the notice u/s 139(2) implied condonation of past delay. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 271(1)(a) and concluded that once a notice u/s 139(2) is issued, no penalty can be imposed for failure to furnish the return u/s 139(1). Computation of Default Period: The High Court interpreted section 271(1)(a) which outlines three types of defaults for penalty imposition. It reasoned that once a valid notice u/s 139(2) is issued, any default related to that notice precludes penalty for failure to furnish the return u/s 139(1). The Court emphasized that penal provisions should be interpreted in a taxpayer-friendly manner. It also noted that the Income-tax Officer's power to issue a notice u/s 139(2) before the prescribed period implies the authority to extend the filing time. Therefore, the Court held that once a notice u/s 139(2) is issued, no penalty can be levied for any default related to section 139(1). This judgment clarifies the interplay between sections 139(1), 139(2), and 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the condonation of delay and computation of default period for penalty assessment.
|
