1992 (9) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty orders of the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, on the ground that the penalty orders were illegal and not according to law

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty orders under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65.
2. Legality of penalty orders imposed by the Income-tax Officer.
3. Authority of the Tribunal to enhance penalties and remand cases.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a registered firm that defaulted in submitting returns for assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalties of Rs. 6,944 and Rs. 70,118, respectively, while the Department argued for higher penalties of Rs. 65,700 and Rs. 93,564, respectively, treating the firm as unregistered. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found the penalties imposed by the Income-tax Officer to be significantly lower than required by law under section 271(1)(a). The Tribunal and High Court affirmed the illegality of the Income-tax Officer's computation, leading to the question of whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the cancellation of penalties by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

Issue 2:
The High Court emphasized that penalties under section 271(1) must fall within the prescribed minimum and maximum limits and be imposed in accordance with the law. It was held that the penalties imposed by the Income-tax Officer were not sustainable as they were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal correctly found the computation of penalties to be incorrect, leading to the cancellation of penalties on legal grounds.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal's view that it had no alternative but to affirm the cancellation of penalties imposed by the Income-tax Officer was deemed incorrect. The Appellate Tribunal has the power to pass orders as it deems fit, including remanding cases for proper assessment of penalties. The High Court erred in not recognizing that the question of law referred to it encompassed the Tribunal's authority to remand cases for proper penalty assessment. Ultimately, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and it was deemed that the Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for a lawful penalty assessment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing the need for penalties to be imposed in accordance with the law and within prescribed limits. The judgment clarified the authority of the Tribunal to remand cases for proper assessment and highlighted the importance of upholding legal procedures in penalty determinations under the Income-tax Act, 1961.