9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent, of the tax? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was competent to reduce the quantum of penalty below the minimum prescribed in section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The respondent-assessee is an individual and the matter pertains to the assessment year 1948-49, accounting year ending in September, 1947. By a notice under section 148 of the Act, the respondent-assessee was required to file his return for the year under reference on or before May 5, 1973. However, it was filed on September 20, 1974. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 274 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maya Rani Pun) [1973] 92 ITR 394; a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330; and a Division Bench decision of the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. J. Stead and Co. P. Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 730. In the case of Ram Murti [1973] 87 ITR 577, this court has held as follows: "Where the Income-tax Officer considers it to be a case attracting penalty, he must follow the terms of that provision as to the quantum of penalty. The provision requires that the quantum should be 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. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj [1986] 157 ITR 330 has held as under: "The use of the expression 'equal to two per cent.' found in section 271(1)(a) clearly gives an indication that it should not be anything less or more than what is prescribed. The section mandates that once the authority has come to the conclusion that penalty is leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(a), the authority exercising his powers under the Act, is bound to impose the penalty that is prescribed by the statute. The Appellate Tribunal is an authority functioning under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and after the Tribunal has recorded a finding that penalty is attracted, it has no jurisdiction to red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
