9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the applicable clause under section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act for the Tribunal fee on an appeal against the order of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Determination of the applicable clause under section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act for the Tribunal fee on an appeal against the order of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) Background: The assessee filed an appeal against the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) with a filing fee of Rs. 500. The Registry contended that the fee was short by Rs. 2,912, calculating it based on the assessed income of Rs. 3,41,220 as per section 253(6)(c), which mandates a fee of 1% of the assessed income. The assessee argued that the fee should be Rs. 500 under clause (d) of section 253(6), which applies to appeals not specified in clauses (a) to (c). Arguments by Assessee: 1. Interpretation of "Case": The assessee argued that the words "in the case to which the appeal relates" in clauses (a) to (c) refer to an appeal before the Tribunal and not to penalty appeals. Penalty is imposed on concealed income, not assessed income, thus clauses (a) to (c) should not apply. 2. Independent Proceedings: Penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, and the "tax sought to be evaded" in Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) shows no connection with assessed income. 3. Support from Precedents: The assessee relied on the majority opinion in Vinod Khatri v. Dy. CIT, which held that penalty appeals fall under clause (d). Arguments by Interveners: 1. General Meaning of "Case": The term "case" in clauses (a) to (c) should be given a general meaning, while "subject-matter of an appeal" in clause (d) denotes a different aspect. 2. Distinction from Assessment: Penalty is linked to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the guilt of the assessee and not directly to the assessed income. 3. Support from Judicial Precedents: Cited cases like CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah and Supreme Court judgments to emphasize the independence of penalty from assessment. Arguments by Department: 1. Link Between Penalty and Assessment: Penalty for concealment is linked to the assessment order and the quantum of income assessed. 2. Statutory Interpretation: The term "subject-matter of an appeal" in clause (d) is different from "in the case to which the appeal relates" in clauses (a) to (c), indicating different contexts. 3. Support from Circulars: Relied on CBDT Circulars explaining the introduction of clause (d) to cover appeals without a nexus to assessed income. Tribunal's Analysis: 1. Legislative History: Reviewed the legislative amendments to section 253(6) and the introduction of clause (d) by the Finance Act, 1999. 2. Majority Opinion in Vinod Khatri: The majority held that penalty appeals fall under clause (d) as they are not directly related to assessed income. 3. Minority Opinion in Vinod Khatri: The minority argued that penalty appeals are connected to assessed income and should fall under clauses (a) to (c). Tribunal's Conclusion: 1. Broad Interpretation of "Case": The Tribunal agreed with the minority opinion that the words "in the case to which the appeal relates" should be broadly construed to cover all appeals related to the amount of income assessed, including penalty appeals. 2. Nexus with Assessed Income: Penalty for concealment is undeniably connected with the assessed income, forming a basis for the filing fee under clauses (a) to (c). 3. Residuary Clause (d): Clause (d) applies to appeals with no nexus to assessed income, such as TDS defaults or non-filing of returns. Final Judgment: The Tribunal fee on an appeal against the order of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is governed by clauses (a) to (c) of section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act.
|
