Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a return filed beyond the time prescribed under section 139(1) but within the time allowed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, precludes levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) by reason of the principle stated in Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd.
Analysis: The Court held that the language of section 271(1)(a) is confined to defaults in filing returns required under section 139(1) or section 139(2) and cannot be extended to returns filed under section 139(4). Extending the principle of Kulu Valley to penalty proceedings would make part of section 271(1)(a) redundant and otiose, which is contrary to settled rules of statutory construction. The Court also accepted the reasoning of several High Courts that Kulu Valley was decided in a different context and could not govern penalty liability for delayed filing.
Conclusion: The return filed under section 139(4) did not save the assessee from penalty under section 271(1)(a), and the Tribunal was wrong in holding otherwise.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was held to be legally maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A return filed within the extended time allowed by section 139(4) does not amount to compliance with section 139(1) or section 139(2) for the purpose of avoiding penalty under section 271(1)(a).