9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the penalty levied under section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be cancelled. 2. Interpretation of section 209A and its applicability to the case. 3. Assessment of the penalty based on the presence of a guilty mind and habitual default. Analysis: 1. The appeal pertained to the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 15,760 imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initiated because the assessee failed to revise the estimate of income, leading to penalty proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty, citing circumstances beyond the assessee's control for not revising the estimate. The ITO contended that the assessee did not show a bona fide cause for the delay. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the need for the revenue to prove the presence of a guilty mind for penalty imposition. 2. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 209A introduced by the Finance Act, 1978, which imposed liability to pay tax if the current income was likely to exceed the specified amount. The statement of advance tax filed by the assessee was deemed correct as it was in line with the provisions of section 209A(1). The Tribunal rejected the argument that the advance tax payable being nil rendered the penalty inapplicable, explaining the computation process required by sub-section (4) of section 209A. The Tribunal emphasized a rational interpretation of the statute to avoid defeating its purpose, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive approach in applying tax provisions. 3. In assessing the penalty, the Tribunal considered the presence of a guilty mind as a requirement and the burden of proof on the revenue to establish the same. It was noted that the revenue did not demonstrate the habitual default of the assessee or prove mens rea beyond doubt. The Tribunal supported the Commissioner's decision based on the lack of evidence regarding the guilty mind and upheld that no interference was warranted in the Commissioner's conclusion. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the lack of proven mens rea and the circumstances beyond the assessee's control for not revising the income estimate.
|
