9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, of the tax assessed for every month during which the default continued – both questions are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 27-7-2004 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGARWAL., K. N. OJHA. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law competent to reduce the penalty under section 271(1)(a) to a figure lower than the sum equal to two per cent, of the tax for every month during which the default continued but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had failed to show any reasonable cause for not filing the return in time, yet reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000 as a token penalty, to meet the ends of justice. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. Sri Mahajan submitted that the law fixes the minimum and maximum penalty which is to be imposed in a given set of circumstances and it is not open to the authorities constituted under the Act to impose penalty of an amount which is less than the minimum prescribed under the Act. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Ram Murti [1973] 87 ITR 577; a Division Bench decision of the Delhi Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. In the case of Maya Rani Punj [1973] 92 ITR 394, the hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the Tribunal is not competent to reduce the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act to a figure lower than the sum equal to two per cent, of the tax for every month during which the default continued but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent, of the tax. The decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maya Rani Pun] [1973] 92 ITR 394 has been affirmed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj [1986] 157 ITR 330. The hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of J. Stead and Co. P. Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 730, has followed the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court and following the decision of the hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
