1989 (4) TMI 147 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the fine imposed under Section 285A(2) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of mens rea (criminal intent) in the imposition of fines.
3. Legal infirmity in the imposition of ad hoc fines.
4. Whether the defaults were venial or technical, warranting non-imposition of fines.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Fine Imposed under Section 285A(2) of the IT Act, 1961:
The appeals arose from the orders imposing fines on the assessee for non-compliance with Section 285A(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1982-83. The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice on 15th Nov. 1985, to which the assessee responded, citing the sudden death of the managing partner and the departure of the chief accountant as reasons for non-compliance. The CIT, after considering the reply, observed that the delay was considerable and the defaults were not the first. Consequently, fines were imposed for each assessment year ranging from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 10,000.

2. Consideration of Mens Rea in the Imposition of Fines:
The assessee argued that mens rea is necessary to attract the provisions of Section 285A(2) and that the omission was not deliberate but due to reasons beyond their control. However, the Departmental Representative cited the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Addl. CIT vs. Khayam Constructions, which established that mens rea is not necessary for invoking Section 285A(2). The Tribunal agreed with this view, stating that the Revenue need not establish mens rea.

3. Legal Infirmity in the Imposition of Ad Hoc Fines:
The assessee contended that the fines suffered from a legal infirmity because penalties imposable were up to Rs. 50 per day for specific defaults, and the imposition of ad hoc amounts rendered the orders void. The Departmental Representative countered that the fines were token amounts and justified given the default periods. The Tribunal, however, did not delve further into this contention, focusing instead on the nature of the defaults.

4. Whether the Defaults were Venial or Technical, Warranting Non-Imposition of Fines:
The Tribunal considered whether the circumstances justified non-imposition of fines. The assessee had provided instances of compliance with Section 285A(1) and argued that the defaults were due to the death of the managing partner and the accountant's departure. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, which held that fines should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so, especially in cases of technical or venial breaches. The Tribunal concluded that the defaults were venial and that the assessee had shown an intention to comply with the law. Consequently, the fines were deemed unnecessary.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal canceled the fines imposed for each assessment year, considering the defaults venial and the assessee's efforts to comply with legal requirements. The appeals were allowed, and the fines aggregating to Rs. 35,000 were canceled.