Penalty for late income-tax return filing survives absence of reasonable cause, belated filing, interest charge, and parallel firm penalty.

Penalty under section 271(1)(a) for failure to furnish a return in time was treated as sustainable where the Tribunal found no reasonable cause for the delay, that finding of fact satisfying the statutory conditions for penalty. The partner's liability was considered independent of the firm's penalty, so a similar penalty on the firm did not prevent penalty on the partner where the partner's default was established. Charging interest for delayed compliance did not nullify the separate penalty liability, and filing the return within the extended period under section 139(4) did not erase the earlier default. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable where the Tribunal found that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not furnishing the return within time; (ii) whether the penalty on a partner, whose only income was share income from the firm, was sustainable when a similar penalty had also been levied on the firm; (iii) whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) was sustainable when interest under the proviso to section 139(1) had been charged; and (iv) whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) was sustainable even though the return had been filed within the period allowed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable where the Tribunal found that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not furnishing the return within time.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding that there was no reasonable cause for the delay was treated as a finding of fact. On that factual basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were met.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(a) was held to be legal.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty on a partner, whose only income was share income from the firm, was sustainable when a similar penalty had also been levied on the firm.

Analysis: The partner's liability was considered independently of the firm's penalty, and the existence of a penalty on the firm did not prevent penalty on the partner where the default attributable to the partner was established.

Conclusion: The penalty on the partner was held to be legal.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) was sustainable when interest under the proviso to section 139(1) had been charged.

Analysis: Charging of interest for delayed compliance did not displace or nullify the separate statutory liability to penalty for failure to furnish the return within time.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be legal notwithstanding the levy of interest.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) was sustainable even though the return had been filed within the period allowed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Filing a return within the extended time for a belated return did not erase the earlier default for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(a).

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be legal despite filing under section 139(4).

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was upheld on all the questions decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for failure to furnish a return within the prescribed time is maintainable where absence of reasonable cause is found, and neither subsequent belated filing nor levy of interest under section 139 negates that statutory liability.

---