9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. 2. Application of Supreme Court decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. 3. Burden of proof on the Department for failure to file the return without reasonable cause. 4. Calculation of penalty based on assessed tax. 5. Treatment of registered firm as an unregistered firm for penalty quantification. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The penalty was imposed due to delayed submission of the return, which was confirmed by the AAC. The Tribunal later cancelled the penalty, stating that the Revenue failed to provide material showing the failure to file the return without reasonable cause. 2. The assessee claimed that no penalty was due based on the Supreme Court decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. However, the Tribunal found it difficult to apply the decision due to an amendment in the law. The amendment clarified that the penalty should be calculated based on the assessed tax, regardless of whether the tax was due or outstanding on the date of penalty imposition. 3. The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty. The Court suggested that the Tribunal should consider the assessee's claim regarding the tax payable and apply the Supreme Court decision if the claim was true. 4. The assessee argued that no penalty could be imposed as a refund was due on the date of penalty imposition. The Department, however, contended that the penalty should be based on the assessed tax, irrespective of the tax status on the penalty date. 5. The Tribunal directed the ITO to verify the advance tax payment made by the assessee and re-compute the penalty accordingly. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the penalty should be restricted based on the tax payable by the assessee as a registered firm, citing section 271(2) which treats registered firms as unregistered for penalty calculation purposes. 6. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above analysis and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.
|
