2013 (2) TMI 203 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds penalty for delayed filing of information returns, stresses importance of pursuing legal remedies.

The court upheld the penalty imposed under section 271FA for delayed filing of annual information returns, finding it lawful and in compliance with the ... Annual information return – If AIR is not filed within time prescribed under the Act, penalty should be imposed or not – AIR was filed with a delay of 202 days – Director of Income Tax (CIB) imposed penalty of Rs. 20,200 – Held that:- No fundamental right or personal right of the petitioner is found to have been infringed. Otherwise too, the petitioner has got efficacious alternative legal remedy to challenge the said order, but the same is not found to have been filed by him – Imposition of penalty is in accordance with the provisions of section 271FA of Income-tax Act – Therefore writ petition failed stay application also stands dismissed – Against the assessee. Issues:Imposition of penalty under section 271FA for late filing of annual information returns.Analysis:The petitioner sought to quash an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,200 for delayed filing of annual information returns. The respondent issued a notice under section 271FA, requiring the petitioner to show cause for the delay. Despite the petitioner's explanation, the delay of 202 days in filing the returns was established. The penalty was imposed at the rate of Rs. 100 per day for the duration of the default. The court found the order to be lawful and in compliance with section 271FA of the Income-tax Act. It was noted that the petitioner had alternative legal remedies available but had not utilized them. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating it lacked merit and refused to entertain it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The court emphasized that no infringement of the petitioner's fundamental or personal rights had occurred. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner had failed to pursue available legal remedies to challenge the penalty order. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could not invoke the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227. The dismissal of the writ petition led to the rejection of the stay application associated with it.In conclusion, the court found no grounds to overturn the penalty imposed under section 271FA for the delayed filing of annual information returns. The judgment emphasized the availability of alternative legal remedies for the petitioner, which had not been pursued. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, and the stay application was also rejected in light of the petition's dismissal.