Mens rea is not required for penalty on late return filing; absence of reasonable cause is the decisive test.

Penalty for failure to furnish a return within time under section 271(1)(a) is a civil, coercive and remedial sanction distinct from criminal prosecution. The provision operates on an objective test of whether the default occurred without reasonable cause, while the Act separately provides interest for delay and prosecution under section 276CC for wilful failure. Because section 271(1)(a) does not use language of wilfulness, contumacious conduct or dishonest intention, mens rea is not implied as an additional requirement for levy of the penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether mens rea is a necessary ingredient for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The penalty for failure to furnish a return within time under section 271(1)(a) was held to be a civil, coercive and remedial sanction for revenue collection, distinct from prosecution for a statutory offence. The scheme of the Act was read as providing three separate consequences for delayed or non-filing of returns: interest under section 139(8), penalty under section 271(1)(a) for absence of reasonable cause, and criminal prosecution under section 276CC where wilful failure is expressly required. Since section 271(1)(a) uses the objective standard of reasonable cause and does not employ language of wilfulness, contumacious conduct or dishonest intention, such a mental element was held not to be implied into the provision.

Conclusion: Mens rea is not required for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a); the only relevant enquiry is whether the failure occurred without reasonable cause.

Ratio Decidendi: In penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the statute does not import a mens rea requirement, and the decisive test is the presence or absence of reasonable cause for the default.

---