1969 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Under the relevant provisions of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to impose a penalty on the petitioner on the ground of failure to file a return within the time prescribed under that section when the return is filed before the assessment is made and the Income-tax Officer completes the assessment on the basis of such a return

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of provisions of Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 regarding filing of returns and imposition of penalties under section 10.

In this judgment by the High Court of Calcutta, the petitioner, a company, filed a return under section 6 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, before the Income-tax Officer. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 10 of the Act, proposing a penalty for allegedly failing to furnish the return as required. The main issue before the court was whether the petitioner's filing of a return after the prescribed time allowed under section 6 constituted a failure to furnish a return, warranting the imposition of a penalty under section 10.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, specifically focusing on section 6 which outlined the requirements for filing returns. The petitioner argued that under section 6(3) of the Act, they were entitled to furnish a return at any time before the assessment was completed. The petitioner contended that since a return was filed and accepted by the Income-tax Officer before the assessment, there was no failure to furnish a return as required under section 6. The petitioner drew parallels with provisions of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the flexibility provided for filing returns and revised returns before assessment.

The court delved into the penalty provisions under section 10 of the Super Profits Tax Act, which allowed for penalties for non-filing of returns without reasonable cause. The respondent contended that the petitioner's delayed filing of the return, without seeking an extension, constituted a failure under section 6, justifying the imposition of a penalty. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that unless specific words in the legislation explicitly provided for penalties in such cases, no penalty could be imposed for filing a return after the prescribed time but before assessment.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to impose a penalty for the delayed filing of the return when it was submitted before the assessment was completed. The court made the rule absolute, quashing the notice issued under section 10 and prohibiting any further proceedings based on it. No costs were awarded in the judgment.