9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1975-76. 2. Whether penalty can be imposed on a registered firm if the tax paid in advance is more than the tax payable. 3. Interpretation of the provisions of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(a) based on different High Court judgments. Detailed Analysis: 1. The departmental appeal was against the cancellation of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the AAC for the assessment year 1975-76. The penalty was imposed due to the delay in filing the return, and the ITO calculated the penalty based on the tax payable by an unregistered firm. The AAC canceled the penalty, stating that as the tax payable by the registered firm was lesser than the advance tax paid, no penalty could be imposed. The department contended that the penalty should be imposed as there was no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. 2. The main issue was whether a penalty could be imposed on a registered firm if the tax paid in advance was more than the tax payable. The High Courts had differing views on this matter. The Gujarat High Court held that penalty could be imposed on a registered firm as if it were an unregistered firm if there was a delay without reasonable cause. On the other hand, the Gauhati High Court took a contrary view, stating that penalty was not attracted if the tax paid exceeded the tax payable by the registered firm. The Calcutta High Court and Bombay High Court supported the imposition of penalties based on the provisions of the law. 3. The consensus among the High Courts was that if a penalty is found to be leviable, it should be calculated according to the provisions of the law. The Special Bench in a separate case clarified that interest or penalties should be imposed based on the interpretation of specific provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held that penalties should be upheld if found imposable on a firm, even if the tax payable by the unregistered firm was more than the tax paid in advance. The matter was remanded to the AAC for a clear finding on the imposition of the penalty and consideration of reduced total income for penalty calculation.
|
