9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the circumstances of the case, when the assessee had filed the return of income within the time allowed under the provisions of section 139(4), the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) was legal ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the departmental authorities had not found to at the assessee's conduct was guilty or contumacious in delaying the filing of the return, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) was legal ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is legal to determine the amount of penalty payable under section 271(1)(a) as a proportion of the 'tax' inclusive of the additional surcharge levied by virtue of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme, 1963 ? " The rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee did not put forward any argument or material to state that there was reasonable cause for the delay and that, in the absence of any valid explanation, it had to be held that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. The I.T. authorities including the Tribunal have not given any finding on the point whether the assessee in delaying the return was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest. The assessee's contention is that in the absence of a positive finding on this point no penalty could be imposed under s. 271(1)(a). The argument in support of this contention is that contumacious or dishonest conduct or, in other words, mens rea is impliedly an essential ingredient of that section. Reliance for this argum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormally not applicable to revenue statutes. The exception is founded on the view that the acts prohibited by revenue statutes are not criminal in any real sense but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty. The exception is recognised in later cases Bruhn v. King [1909] AC 317 (PC); State of Maharashtra v. M. H. George [1965] 35 Comp Cas 557; AIR 1965 SC 722; Patel v. Comptroller of Customs [1965] 3 All ER 593 (PC); Comptroller of Customs v. Western Lectric Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 599 (PC). The Supreme Court in R.S. Joshi, STO v. Ajit Mills Ltd. [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC) recently held that " the classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servation in that case that "........ penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation ", cannot be applied in every case without reference to the words used by the Legislature. These observations, in our opinion, cannot be any authority for the contention that under s. 271(1)(a) the I.T. authorities must find some extra mental element apart from finding that the assessee had failed to furnish the return without reasonable cause. The case of CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) related to s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, which corresponds to s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
