TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds penalty for late tax return filing under Income-tax Act despite notice discrepancies</h1> The High Court upheld the validity of the penalty imposed on the assessee for late filing of the return under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, ... Penalty, Delay In Filing Return Issues involved:The judgment addresses the issue of cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the validity of the notice served for late filing of the return by the assessee.Judgment Details:The case involved Mr. Maharaj Krishan, the assessee, who filed his income tax return for the assessment year 1958-59, which led to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 11,167 for delayed filing. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the penalty, stating that the proceedings were validly initiated despite some errors in the notice served. The Tribunal, however, found the notice lacking a specific charge against the assessee for late submission of the return, leading to doubts about the validity of the penalty.Upon examination, the AAC concluded that the notice, along with the assessment order, sufficiently informed the assessee about the penalty action for late filing. The Tribunal, on the other hand, focused on the lack of a clear charge in the notice and questioned the validity of the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was based on the belief that the original records were not thoroughly reviewed, unlike the AAC's detailed examination.The High Court, after considering the arguments, held that the penalty was validly levied as per the directions in the assessment order for delay in filing the return. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's stance, stating that the initiation of penalty proceedings was justified. The Court emphasized that the subsequent issuance of another notice did not invalidate the initial notice, especially when there was a clear directive in the assessment order for penalty initiation. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the cancellation of the penalty was unjustified.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the reference, affirming the validity of the penalty imposed on the assessee for late filing of the return.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
