9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, roads and other civil engineering structures. 3. There is no dispute that the assessee was liable to furnish certain information to the IAC having jurisdiction to assess it in accordance with sub-s. (1) of s. 285A of the Act. The information was to be furnished in Form No. 52 as provided in r. 120 of the IT Rules 1962. There is also no dispute that such information was not furnished. The IAC (Assessment) issued a notice to the assessee on 27th Feb., 1980 stating that since it had failed to furnish the required information its case has to be referred to the CIT. Although the notice does not specifically state, but there is also no dispute that the matter was being referred to the CIT for imposition of fine in terms of sub-s. (2) of s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to impose or not to impose any fine and also to the extent the fine was to be imposed. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, the discretion by the CIT was to be exercised in a judicious, proper and fair manner. It was also submitted that mens rea was an essential ingredient for imposing a fine under the above sub-section of s. 285A of the Act. The CIT finally held as under: "7. I have perused the records and considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel. The fact that the returns were delayed has not been denied. I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel that establishment of mens rea is necessary for imposition of fine under s. 285(1). In this connection, I would follow the decision reported at (1980) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Khayam Constructions (1980) 16 CTR (AP) 24 : (1980) 123 ITR 573 (AP), he submitted that the law had been correctly laid down by a Full Bench of that Court in Addl. CIT Anr. vs. Pargapandarinath Tuljayya Co. (1977) 107 ITR 850 (AP) (FB), wherein it was held that where the statute provides for judicial or quasi-judicial authorities under the Act and lays down its own objective test for levying penalty and excludes mens rea, then the statute should prevail and the question of providing mens rea does not arise. The counsel submitted before us that s. 285A did not lay down any such objective test for imposing the fine and, therefore, mens rea could not be excluded in interpretation of sub-s. (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have quoted above, has clearly admitted that there was only a technical default on the part of the assessee and that it had also been complying with the requirements of the section carefully thereafter. This goes to show that the non-compliance to the provisions of s. 285A(1) was only because the management of the assessee was not aware of the provisions of the section. This is understandable as the assessee was incorporated only on 1st may, 1975 and had commenced business from 7th Aug., 1975. It was, therefore, a completely new concern. Merely because it was manned by Senior Govt. Officers is not ground to hold that it was presumed to know all the intricate provisions of a complicated Act, like IT Act. It is entitled to the same protectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be imposed. Here is a case where the assessee for the first time took up a contract. He was not being assisted by any professional people. He was a college student till recently. He filed a return. The tax was deducted at source when the Government paid him the money. The assessment was completed and the refund was actually due to him. The plea that the assessee was not aware of the legal requirements cannot be brushed aside and he be made liable to a fine on the ground that ignorance of law is not excuse. The old theory that ignorance of law is no excuse does not hold good in view of the complexity of laws in modern days. It is impossible for any one let alone well informed peopled to know all the technicalities of law. A mere breach of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minimum amount of fine is fixed indicates that free discretion is given to the CIT, who is the highest officer of the Department in the State, to exercise the power properly and judiciously taking into account the Acts and circumstances of each case. He is, therefore, entitled to impose even token fine under this provision if the facts justify such imposition. He may impose the maximum fine in a case where he feels it just and proper. He may also in his discretion think it just and proper not to impose any fine because it is not mandatory on his part to impose fine in every case of default. Fine is, therefore, not automatically or invariably to be imposed in each and every case where default is committed under s. 285A(1)." Again the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
