9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 275 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 140A(3) - non-payment of self-assessment tax - Held that - As decided in assessee own case the assessee was facing financial constrain and acute liquidity crunch and there was a good and sufficient cause for the assessee for non payment of tax which was incorrectly rejected by the AO while wrongly imposing penalty u/s 140A(3) of the Act. We are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A) which deleted the penalty and thus, we uphold the same. In the case of the assessee for we delete the penalty levied by the ld CIT(A) and accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in restricting the penalty to ₹ 18 lakhs is also dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Reduction of penalty by CIT(A). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Penalty under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.08.2010, indicating a self-assessment tax liability of ?1,13,41,820/-. This tax was eventually paid along with interest, but not at the time of filing the return. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice for the levy of penalty under Section 140A(3). The assessee contended that the delay was due to a liquidity crunch and the seizure of their bank accounts by the Income Tax Department. Despite these explanations, the AO imposed a penalty of ?1,13,41,820/- on 31.05.2012. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty but restricted it to ?18 lakhs, acknowledging the financial constraints faced by the assessee. The assessee further appealed against this decision, arguing that the issue was already adjudicated in their favor for the Assessment Year 2009-10 by the ITAT, where a similar penalty under Section 140A(3) was deleted. The ITAT reviewed the previous order and found that the penalty under Section 140A(3) was not sustainable. It was noted that the provisions of Section 140A(3) do not provide for a penalty procedure, and the correct section for imposing such a penalty would be Section 221. The ITAT emphasized that the AO had not issued a notice under Section 221, thereby denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity to prove that the default was due to "good and sufficient reasons" as required by law. 2. Reduction of Penalty by CIT(A): The revenue contested the reduction of the penalty from ?1,13,41,820/- to ?18 lakhs by the CIT(A). However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had demonstrated a "good and sufficient cause" for the delay in tax payment, such as financial constraints and the seizure of bank accounts. The ITAT also pointed out that the entire tax liability was cleared before the penalty order was passed, further supporting the assessee's case. The ITAT concluded that the AO’s failure to issue a notice under Section 221 and the subsequent imposition of penalty under the incorrect section (Section 140A(3)) rendered the penalty order unsustainable. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the penalty and allowed the assessee's appeal while dismissing the revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s reduction of the penalty. Conclusion: The ITAT's judgment emphasized the importance of following the correct procedural provisions for imposing penalties and recognized the assessee's financial difficulties as a valid reason for the delay in tax payment. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, resulting in the deletion of the penalty.
|
