2014 (12) TMI 855 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds penalty reduction to 25% under Section 140A(3) citing lack of tax evasion intent and timely payment.

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII Versus Naresh Kumar Jaggi

The Court upheld the decision to restrict the penalty under Section 140A(3) to 25%, emphasizing the lack of intention to evade tax and the timely payment ... Restriction of penalty imposed u/s 140A(3) to 25% - Held that:- Assessee has earned substantial income in the year but he did not pay the due tax within the stipulated time after service of demand notice - assessee paid the admitted tax by 28.04.2011 before the issuance of the show cause notice by the AO on 22.11.2011 - it is a case of ‘proportionality’ - the assessee paid advance tax of ₹ 14,00,000/- after the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, the intimation was sent to the assessee on 01.02.2011 calling upon him to make payment by 01.02.2011 - The assessee deposited the tax due by April 28, 2011, which is much before the date of issuance of notice u/s 140A(3) of the Act by the AO i.e. November 22, 2011 - when the authorities were justified in restricting the penalty to 25% based on cogent material and finding, more so when it is discretionary as the same is clearly rendered u/s 221 - the discretion so exercised is within the mandate of law and based on good, valid and cogent ground – the order of the Tribunal is upheld. Revenue perhaps harbours the belief that maximum penalty must be imposed in all cases, which is not the legislative mandate. – decided against revenue. Issues:Challenge to order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding penalty imposition under Section 140A(3).Analysis:The appeal by the revenue challenged the Tribunal's order upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the penalty under Section 140A(3) to 25%. The respondent-assessee had not paid the admitted tax liability under Section 140A, leading to a penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty but reduced it to 25% based on the appellant's financial hardship claim. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, emphasizing the lack of reasonable cause for the delay in tax payment.The appellant-revenue contended that the penalty was rightly imposed due to the assessee's default in paying the due tax within the specified period. However, the respondent-assessee argued financial hardship as the reason for the delay in payment, supported by bank statements and other relevant details. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that there was no intention to evade tax, as the tax was eventually paid, albeit belatedly. The penalty was reduced to 25% by both authorities.The Court considered the principle of 'proportionality' in decision-making, citing relevant case law. It analyzed whether the penalty restriction to 25% was justified. The Court found that the authorities' decision to reduce the penalty was valid, given the timely payment of tax before the notice under Section 140A(3) was issued. The discretion exercised by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal was within the legal mandate, considering mitigating factors and the payment made by the assessee. The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial question of law arose.In conclusion, the judgment upholds the decision to restrict the penalty under Section 140A(3) to 25%, emphasizing the lack of intention to evade tax and the timely payment made by the assessee. The Court's analysis focused on the proportionality of the penalty imposed and the valid exercise of discretion by the lower authorities.