Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Tax Tribunal rules penalties discretionary for failure to perform statutory obligations; High Court upholds decision in favor of assessee. The Tribunal referred the question of whether penalty under section 140A(3) was leviable, finding that the imposition of penalty for failure to perform a ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tax Tribunal rules penalties discretionary for failure to perform statutory obligations; High Court upholds decision in favor of assessee.
The Tribunal referred the question of whether penalty under section 140A(3) was leviable, finding that the imposition of penalty for failure to perform a statutory obligation is discretionary. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that penalties can be refused for minor breaches. Due to financial constraints and lack of reasons provided by the ITO, the Tribunal concluded no penalty was warranted. The High Court upheld this decision, finding no legal issues and ruling in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.
Issues involved: Application for reference of questions of law under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding penalty under section 140A(3) levied by the ITO.
Summary: The Commissioner of Income-tax applied to the Tribunal for referring three questions of law under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal referred only the question of whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under section 140A(3) was leviable. An order of penalty was passed by the ITO on the ground that the assessee did not pay tax on the basis of the returned income within the due date, charging a sum of Rs. 25,000 as penalty under s. 140A(3) of the I.T. Act. The AAC upheld the order of the ITO, but the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion to be exercised judicially. Citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 26, the Tribunal held that the authority competent to impose penalty can refuse to impose the minimum penalty for technical or venial breaches of the Act. The Tribunal found that due to paucity of funds, the assessee could not pay the tax, and the ITO had not provided reasons for imposing the penalty. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable, which was affirmed by the High Court.
The High Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order and answered the question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. No costs were awarded in the matter.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
