9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The contention put forward by the assessee was that the firm as well as its partners had paid not only the advance tax under s. 18A of the Act but also the tax that fell due on completion of the provisional assessment under s. 23B of the Act and as such no penalty was exigible. Their contention was overruled and holding that the assessee has failed to show any reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 63,602 under s. 271(1)(i) of the prevalent I. T. Act, 1961. As the AAC gave only a nominal relief of Rs 6,358 by way of reduction in the penalty amount, the assessee went in further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Though a finding was recorded by the authorities below that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll Bench by its judgment dated July 28, 1981 [CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri [1981] 132 ITR 671 (P H)], has rendered the answer in the negative holding that the doctrine of mens rea is not attracted to the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. With the decision of the Full Bench, the main contention of the assessee under question No. 2 stands answered against it. So far as the first question is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that it stands concluded by a decision of this court in CIT v. Mangat Ram Kuthiala [1978] 111 ITR 823, wherein it was held that as a result of the amendment of s. 271(1)(a)(i), the expression now used is " assessed tax " and not " tax payable " and as this amendment has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ujarat High Court in the CIT v. R. Ochhavalal Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518. However, it is not necessary for us to express our considered opinion on this matter because in the case of Murugan Timber Depot [1978] 113 ITR 99 (Mad), the amount of the assessed tax worked out according to the Explanation to s. 271(1)(i)(b) happened to be nil. The amount of the penalty in this case, therefore, could not be worked out unless the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 271 were invoked to calculate the assessed tax. The Gauhati and Madras High Courts held that if no penalty could be imposed because of the assessed tax being nil, the assessee was not liable to penalty within the meaning of sub-s. (2) of s. 271. On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
