TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court upholds penalties for late filing of Form 27EC under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Divisional Logging Manager Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> Divisional Logging Manager Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues:Appeals against consolidated order by Department, imposition of penalty under Section 272A(2)(C) of the Income Tax Act, delay in filing Form No. 27EC, responsibility of the D.D.O, gross negligence, plea of reasonable cause.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to four appeals filed by the Department against a consolidated order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were admitted based on substantial questions of law regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 272A(2)(C) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue revolved around whether the penalty could be justified in the given circumstances and if it could only be imposed for technical breaches such as delay in filing Form 27EC.The case involved a State undertaking obligated to prepare and furnish Form 27EC as per the Income Tax rules. The penalty under Section 272A(2)(C) was imposed due to significant delays in filing the half-yearly returns for various periods. The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the responsibility to furnish the returns rested with the D.D.O and not the Headquarters. The court emphasized that the obligation to file the returns was mandatory and not merely a procedural error. The court rejected the argument that the delay was due to the Headquarters' oversight, stating that it was the D.D.O's primary duty. The court found the D.D.O's negligence to be gross and emphasized that the liability could not be shifted to others like the Chartered Accountant or Headquarters.Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Department, stating that the reasons provided by the Tribunal were sufficient to sustain the penalties imposed. The court dismissed all four appeals filed by the assessee, upholding the penalties under Section 272A(2)(C) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment reinforced the importance of timely compliance with tax regulations and held the responsible party, the D.D.O, accountable for the delays in filing the required returns.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
