9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Delay in filing return leading to penalty imposition under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. - Discrepancy in income assessment and relief granted by the AAC. - Obligation to file return under sections 139(1) and 139(2) of the Act. - Justifiability of penalty imposition based on income determination and tax due. - Applicability of penalty provisions under section 271(3)(b) in case of no income liable to tax. Analysis: 1. The appeal pertains to the delay in filing the return for the assessment year 1969-70, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The initial notice under section 139(2) was issued on 12th June, 1969, with an extension granted to file the return by 31st Dec., 1969. However, no further extension application was submitted, resulting in a delay of 12 months as per the Income Tax Officer (ITO). 2. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee argued that the income was subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, and no penalty should be imposed. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 55,177 based on the tax due of Rs. 2,29,653. The Assistant Commissioner (AAC) later canceled the penalty, stating that there was no obligation on the assessee to file the return, as per the submitted income figures. 3. The dispute continued with the Revenue contending that the penalty should be imposed based on the income assessment of Rs. 883, leading to a tax due of Rs. 618. The Departmental Representative argued that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, suggesting a penalty of Rs. 309 or Rs. 25 under section 271(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee maintained that no penalty was justifiable, citing a loss of Rs. 2,41,207 as per the books of account. The AAC's relief of Rs. 3,43,077 was questioned, leading to a detailed examination of the income determination and tax liability. The assessee's position was that there was no income to file a return, supported by the belief that income was subject to tax deduction at source. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, considering the discrepancy in income assessment and relief granted by the AAC. It was concluded that there were reasonable causes for the delay in filing the return, and the conduct of the assessee was not contumacious. Therefore, no penalty was deemed leviable, and the order of the AAC was sustained on different grounds. 6. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that in the given circumstances, no penalty was warranted based on the facts, circumstances, and the assessee's genuine belief regarding income and tax obligations.
|
