9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the correctness of the finding of the learned AAC regarding delayed payment of tax under section 140A. 2. Imposition of penalty under section 140A(3) and the grounds for contesting the penalty order. 3. Dispute regarding the effective date for imposing and computing penalty under section 140A. Analysis: 1. The appellant-assessee challenged the finding of the learned AAC regarding the delayed payment of tax under section 140A for the assessment year 1983-84. The appellant contended that the circumstances leading to the delayed payment of tax were not considered by the AAC. The penalty imposed was also deemed excessive by the appellant, who argued that it was punitive rather than corrective. 2. The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed its return for the year ending 31st March 1983, on 21st June 1985, showing a net income of Rs. 97,547. The assessment was completed under section 144 on 29th November 1985, with a total income of Rs. 1,70,000. The self-assessment tax of Rs. 49,700 was required to be paid, but the assessee had only paid Rs. 5,000 as advance tax. The penalty of Rs. 3,575 was imposed under section 140A(3) for the default in payment. 3. The appellant contested the penalty order before the learned AAC, arguing that the delay in tax payment was due to financial constraints as the assessee had taken loans for investments. The appellant also cited legal precedents and the Finance Minister's statements to support their case. However, the AAC upheld the penalty, stating that there was no evidence of financial difficulty preventing the tax payment on the due date. 4. The main issue before the tribunal was the effective date for imposing and calculating the penalty under section 140A. The appellant argued that since a revised return was filed after the original assessment was set aside, the penalty should be based on the revised return date. However, the tribunal held that the penalty should be imposed based on the original return date, as it was the effective assessment date for penalty calculation. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed by the assessing officer. 5. The tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on legal precedents that dealt with different factual circumstances. The tribunal emphasized that in the present case, the penalty was correctly imposed with reference to the date of default, and there was no confusion regarding the relevant date for penalty calculation. The tribunal confirmed the penalty upheld by the AAC, concluding that the assessing officer's actions were justified and warranted. 6. In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to overturn the penalty imposed under section 140A. The tribunal upheld the assessing officer's decision regarding the date of default and the calculation of the penalty, based on the original return filing date. No other grounds were raised or pressed during the proceedings.
|
