2014 (5) TMI 927 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal reduces penalty under Income Tax Act, 1961

Naresh Kumar Jaggi Versus ACIT, CC-11, New Delhi

Naresh Kumar Jaggi Versus ACIT, CC-11, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Reduction of penalty by the CIT(A) from 100% to 25%.Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 140A(3):The Assessing Officer (A.O.) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,25,29,942/- under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the assessee as in default for not paying the admitted tax liability of Rs. 1,26,46,875/- within the stipulated period. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 3rd November 2010, declaring an income of Rs. 6,23,36,790/-. However, the assessee did not make the payment of the admitted tax liability under Section 140A of the Act. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) on 28.12.2010, and a demand of Rs. 1,84,02,860/- was raised against the assessee. The assessee failed to make the payment by the due date of 01.02.2011, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 140A(3) on 22nd November 2011. The A.O. considered the assessee's reply but found no reasonable cause for the non-payment of the admitted tax liability and imposed the penalty.2. Reduction of Penalty by CIT(A):The first appellate authority, CIT(A), restricted the penalty to 25% of the tax liability, giving relief of 75% of the penalty imposed by the A.O. The CIT(A) acknowledged the assessee's argument that the admitted tax was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice and that the delay was due to financial hardship. However, the CIT(A) emphasized that the provisions of Section 140A(3) are mandatory, and the assessee is deemed to be in default if the tax is not paid within the specified time. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant's claim of financial crisis was not substantiated with evidence. Despite this, considering that the entire tax was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, the CIT(A) found that the imposition of the maximum penalty was not justified and reduced the penalty to 25%.Appeals by Assessee and Department:Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee contended that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in payment due to financial hardship and that the penalty should be deleted entirely. The Department argued that the penalty should be restored to 100% as the assessee did not provide a reasonable cause for the delay and the financial hardship claim was not substantiated.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal considered the arguments and material on record. It noted that the assessee had substantial income but failed to pay the due tax within the stipulated time. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had already taken a lenient view by reducing the penalty to 25%. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the relief granted was sufficient and justified. Consequently, both the appeals by the assessee and the Department were dismissed.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the reduction of the penalty from 100% to 25% of the tax liability. The assessee's appeal for further reduction and the Department's appeal for restoration of the full penalty were both dismissed. The decision emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 140A(3) and the importance of timely payment of admitted tax liabilities.