9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Penalty under s. 221(1) of the IT Act for the assessment years 1970-71, 1973-74 to 1979-80.
Analysis: 1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the cancellation of penalties under s. 221(1) of the IT Act for various assessment years. The common issue in these appeals was regarding the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and subsequently cancelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) for the assessment years 1970-71, 1973-74 to 1979-80. The appeals were heard together due to identical facts and disposed of by a common order for convenience. 2. The ITO had imposed the penalty on the assessee for defaulting in tax payment, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice. The penalty was imposed on the grounds of non-payment of tax, and the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. However, the AAC, following a Board's Circular, cancelled the penalty stating that there was no outstanding demand on the date the penalty order was passed. 3. The Revenue, aggrieved by the AAC's decision, contended that the penalty should not have been cancelled. They argued that a statutory amendment to s. 221(1) clarified that the assessee remains liable for penalty even after paying the tax. The Revenue further claimed that the Board's circular had been withdrawn by a subsequent circular in 1979, making the AAC's order erroneous. 4. During the hearing, both parties presented their arguments. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals. It held that the clarification in the Explanation to s. 221(1) did not automatically nullify the rights conferred by the earlier circular on the assessee. The Tribunal cited precedents to support the assessee's right to benefit from circulars in force during the relevant assessment years. It concluded that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the circular, and the AAC's decision to cancel the penalties was justified. 5. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the merit of the case and found that the AAC had not adequately examined certain aspects. The assessee had been granted installment facilities by the tax authorities, and payments were made as per the agreed plan. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the ITO was unjustified as the assessee was not in default according to s. 221(1). The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to cancel the penalties for all the relevant years based on the lack of basis for the penalty orders. 6. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the orders cancelling the penalties under s. 221(1) for the assessment years 1970-71, 1973-74 to 1979-80 were upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.
|
