1980 (10) TMI 112 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Appeal against the penalty imposed under section 273(c) of the IT Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a)
The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty imposed for a delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 1975-76. The delay was due to non-finalization of accounts, and the assessee argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty despite the explanation provided by the assessee. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) upheld the penalty order stating that no extension of time was applied for. However, the Judicial Member (JM) of the ITAT held that the penalty proceedings are independent, and it is open for the assessee to show a reasonable cause for the delay, irrespective of applying for an extension. Referring to the Hindustan Steel Ltd. case, it was emphasized that penalties should not be imposed unless there is deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct. The JM found that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay, as accounts were not finalized, and objections were raised against the assessment. The JM, therefore, canceled the penalty of Rs. 491.

Issue 2: Appeal against the penalty imposed under section 273(c)
The appeal was against the penalty imposed under section 273(c) for failure to file a higher estimate of advance tax under section 212(3A). The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 273(b) but imposed the penalty under section 273(c). The assessee contended that the penalty could not be levied on a different footing from the one initiated. The Judicial Member (JM) agreed with the assessee, citing a Gujarat High Court case that penalties cannot be imposed on a different charge than the one initiated. The JM noted that the charge against the assessee was different from the penalty imposed, and therefore, the penalty could not be upheld. The Department's argument that Section 292B could save the penalty was rejected, as the notice did not mention the correct charge under section 273(c). The JM, considering all facts and circumstances, canceled the penalty imposed under section 273(c).

This judgment highlights the importance of valid reasons for delays in filing returns and the necessity for penalty charges to align with the charges initiated during proceedings. It also emphasizes the need for clear communication of charges in official notices to ensure fairness in penalty imposition.