1990 (5) TMI 57 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-C involved the consideration of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case pertained to an assessment year where the assessee, a registered firm, filed its return with a delay of 15 months, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The assessee resisted the penalty on grounds including the illness of its accountant, extension sought, and excess advance tax payment compared to the tax assessed.

The ITO, in the penalty order, rejected the ground related to the illness of the accountant as it had been continuously raised since previous assessment years. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 59,110 under section 271(1)(a) without addressing the other grounds raised by the assessee.

Upon appeal, the Appellate Commissioner (AAC) acknowledged the extension application filed by the assessee but upheld the penalty without considering the effect of the extension on the penalty amount. The AAC also distinguished a relevant decision cited by the assessee regarding excess advance tax payment and confirmed the penalty based on the provisions of section 271 and the explanation thereto.

The main controversy in the appeal revolved around the effect of advance tax payment exceeding the assessed tax on the levy of penalty for late filing of the return. Previous decisions of the Gujarat High Court were cited, including cases where penalties were cancelled due to the absence of contumacious conduct by the assessee, especially when excess tax payment indicated no fraudulent intent.

The Tribunal observed that the conduct of the assessee, demonstrated by the excess advance tax payment and entitlement to a refund, did not reflect contumacious behavior. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty under section 271(1)(a) was justified in this case, leading to the cancellation of the penalty and allowing the appeal. The judgment emphasized that the levy of penalties should be based on the principle of contumacious conduct and the conduct of the assessee in the given circumstances.