9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two questions of law arising out of its order dated July 21, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 7,339 levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame to the conclusion that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 47,428 as absence fee for its employees for the services rendered in India and included the tax liability as the income of Rs.99,850 accrued to the assessee company in India. A penalty of Rs. 7,339 was levied on the tax amount of Rs. 52,421. This matter was challenged in appeal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. We have considered the matter. For the purpose of levy of penalty or to find out whether an offence under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act has been committed or not mens rea is not required to be proved and it is not an essential ingredient. The only requirement is as to whether there was reasonable cause or not for which an explanation has to be submitted by the assessee. The mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a is not required to be proved for levying penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be considered to be in accordance with law and since the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not gone into that point and has remitted the penalty on the ground that there is no tax liability hence no penalty could be lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
