9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Imposition of a fine under section 285A(2) of the IT Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the imposition of a fine of Rs. 7,000 under section 285A(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant, a public sector undertaking, failed to furnish required information to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (IAC) as per section 285A(1) of the Act. The IAC referred the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) for imposing a fine due to non-compliance. The appellant contended that the failure was unintentional and that compliance was made promptly upon becoming aware of the requirement. Legal arguments were presented, emphasizing the discretionary power of the CIT in imposing fines and the absence of mens rea as a requirement for such penalties. The CIT imposed a token fine of Rs. 50 for each default, totaling Rs. 7,800, considering it a technical fault despite the appellant's subsequent compliance and lack of deliberate intent to evade tax. The appellant appealed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, which emphasized the discretionary nature of penalties for statutory obligations. The appellant argued that mens rea should not be excluded in interpreting section 285A(2) and that proper care should be taken before imposing fines under this section. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the non-compliance was due to the appellant's lack of awareness of the provision, given its recent incorporation and commencement of business. Drawing parallels with a similar case before the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances and intent behind the default before imposing fines. Citing the High Court of Andhra Pradesh's decision, the Tribunal emphasized the discretionary nature of the CIT's power to levy fines and the need for judicious and fair exercise of such discretion. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the CIT erred in imposing the fine, given the technical nature of the default and the appellant's subsequent compliance. The entire fine of Rs. 7,800 was remitted, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
