9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeals against penalty under section 271(1)(a) for assessment years 1982-83 and 1984-85. Detailed Analysis: 1. The assessee's explanation for the delayed filing of returns was the illness of the Chartered Accountant handling tax matters. The Assessing Officer imposed penalties not accepted by the DC (Appeals). 2. The counsel argued that the illness of the Chartered Accountant was a reasonable cause for the delay, citing precedents. However, the Tribunal found no general principle in the cited cases applicable to the current situation. 3. The Tribunal examined the medical certificate provided by the Chartered Accountant's doctor, indicating a prolonged illness until October 1981. No additional evidence was presented to justify the delay in filing the returns. 4. The Tribunal emphasized that illness cannot excuse all defaults, and the duty to fulfill legal obligations remains even in the counsel's absence. Waiting indefinitely for recovery is unreasonable. 5. A previous Tribunal order cited by the assessee was deemed non-binding as it lacked a finding that illness justified the delay. Additionally, the advance-tax payment exceeding the assessed tax was not considered a defense against penalty. 6. The Tribunal rejected the argument that excess advance-tax payment absolved the assessee of contumacious conduct, citing contrary judgments by the jurisdictional High Court. 7. The Tribunal distinguished between interest levied under section 139(8) and penalties under section 271(1)(a), highlighting the deterrent nature of penalties for ensuring compliance. 8. The argument that the jurisdictional High Court's judgment conflicted with the Supreme Court's decision was dismissed, emphasizing the need to follow direct precedent. 9. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the penalties, concluding that the delay in filing the returns lacked a reasonable cause, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. 10. The appeals against the penalties were dismissed, and the penalties under section 271(1)(a) for the respective assessment years were upheld.
|
