9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 273(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(a) Facts and Proceedings: The return was due on 30th June 1982. The assessee filed multiple applications for extension of time to file the return, with the last application seeking an extension until 31st March 1983. The Income Tax Authority (IAC) granted an extension only until 30th September 1982, and no replies were sent for subsequent applications. The return was eventually filed on 20th May 1983. The IAC issued a show cause notice for delay, and the assessee cited the sickness of directors and the resignation of an experienced accountant as reasons for the delay. The IAC did not accept these explanations and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(a). The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading the assessee to appeal. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the applications for extensions were not rejected by the IAC, implying that the time was deemed to be extended. Referring to the Bombay High Court decision in Lachman Chaturbhuj Java vs. R.G. Nitsure & Ors. and similar judgments from the Gujarat and Patna High Courts, the Tribunal held that the Department should have communicated any refusal to extend time. Since the audit was completed on 21st March 1983 and the return was filed within two months, the delay was justified. Additionally, the sickness of one of the directors provided sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the IAC was set aside. 2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 273(2)(b) Facts and Proceedings: The assessee was required to pay advance tax in three installments. The first estimate showed a tax payable of Rs. 60,000, with Rs. 50,000 paid in the first two installments. A revised estimate filed on 15th December 1981 showed a tax payable of Rs. 50,000, with no further payment required. The return filed on 20th May 1983 showed a loss, but the final assessed income was Rs. 11,25,000 due to certain disallowances. The IAC imposed a penalty under Section 273(2)(b), stating the assessee's estimate was untrue. The CIT(A) partially accepted the assessee's explanation but upheld the penalty for other disallowances. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that Section 273(2)(b) pertains to failure to furnish an estimate, which was not the case here. The CIT(A) suggested the penalty could be under Section 273(2)(a) instead. The Tribunal agreed that mentioning the wrong section does not invalidate the penalty if another provision applies. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable grounds for the estimates made, based on existing circumstances and legal precedents. The belief that certain receipts would be treated as capital and certain deductions would be allowed was reasonable at the time of filing the estimate. Therefore, the provisions of Section 273(2)(a) were not attracted, and the penalty was canceled. Conclusion: Both appeals were allowed, and the penalties imposed under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(b) were set aside.
|
