9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the penalty levied under section 140A(3) amounting to Rs. 1,13,000 was cancelled? - 2. Whether it is necessary to prove existence of any mala fide intention or fraudulent or contumacious conduct of the assessee for imposition of penalty for the default committed under section 140A of the Income-tax Act?" - Tribunal found tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the penalty levied under section 140A(3) amounting to Rs. 1,13,000 was cancelled? 2. Whether it is necessary to prove existence of any mala fide intention or fraudulent or contumacious conduct of the assessee for imposition of penalty for the default committed under section 140A of the Income-tax Act?" Briefly stated the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er elaborate discussion, confirmed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is contended by Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat that in view of the provisions of section 140A(3) as it existed on April 1, 1976, there was no discretion with the assessing authority except to inflict penalty in case of default. For convenience, sub-section (3) of section 140A as it stood prior to the amendment re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is based on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court dated October 24, 1979, rendered in D. B. Civil Income-tax Reference Application No. 65 of 1978-CIT v. Jaipur Electro P. Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 476 (Raj) (Appex-I). In the said case, there was a delay in payment of due amount, as such the penalty was imposed by the Income-tax Officer. On the basis of the material available on the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
