1984 (2) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Tax penalty upheld for late filing by partnership firm under Income-tax Act, 1961

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Surana And Company

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Surana And Company - [1985] 151 ITR 775, 40 CTR 68, 19 TAXMANN 193 Issues:1. Interpretation of penalty provisions under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Application of legal fiction in determining penalty for late filing of return.3. Impact of retrospective amendments on penalty imposition.Analysis:The case involved the interpretation of penalty provisions under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, filed its return of total income after a delay of over eight months. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(a) due to the late filing of the return. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the penalty, while the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cancelled the penalty based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. The ITAT held that the tax payable for penalty calculation is the amount for which a demand notice is issued under section 156, deducting the tax already paid, including advance tax and provisional assessment amounts.The key issue was the application of the legal fiction under section 271(2) for determining penalty in the case of a registered firm. The ITAT reasoned that the provision of treating a registered firm as an unregistered firm for penalty calculation only applies if any tax amount was payable by the assessee at the time of the demand notice. The ITAT emphasized that the tax payable is crucial for penalty imposition and that the legal fiction provision must be read in conjunction with section 271(1)(a)(i)(b).The judgment also discussed the impact of retrospective amendments on penalty imposition. The court highlighted the amendments made by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, which clarified the basis for quantifying tax for penalty purposes. The amended provisions specified that the penalty amount should be calculated based on the assessed tax, excluding the sum paid through provisional assessment. Consequently, the court concluded that the cancellation of the penalty by the ITAT could not be upheld due to the retrospective amendments. The court held that the penalty imposed by the ITO was justified, considering the revised provisions of section 271(1)(a)(i) and the legal fiction provision under section 271(2).In conclusion, the court answered the reference by stating that the penalty imposed on the assessee should be maintained in accordance with the retrospective amendments to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the penalty calculation should be based on the assessed income, treating the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm for quantifying the penalty amount.