Tribunal upholds deletion of penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. It was held that post-amendment Section 140A(3) does not allow for penalty imposition for non-payment of self-assessment tax. The Tribunal found the assessee's financial constraints, attributed to delays in a development project, as a reasonable cause for non-payment, justifying the penalty deletion. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals for both assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-payment of self-assessment tax by the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalty Levied under Section 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Background:
The revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which deleted the penalty of Rs. 3,92,70,237/- levied on the assessee under Section 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 declaring an income of Rs. 6,86,61,138/-, later revised to Rs. 9,64,16,230/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and later scrutinized under Section 143(2). The AO observed that the assessee failed to pay its self-assessment tax liability of Rs. 3,92,70,237/- and imposed a penalty under Section 221(1) read with Section 140A(3).

Contentions:
- Assessee's Argument: The failure to pay the self-assessment tax was due to financial constraints caused by delays in the Karanja Port development project. The assessee argued that the post-amendment Section 140A(3) does not allow for penalty imposition for non-payment of self-assessment tax, supported by ITAT Mumbai decisions in Heddle Knowledge (P) Ltd. and Balraj Prakashchand Bansal.
- Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the AO rightly imposed the penalty as the assessee was deemed to be in default under Section 140A(3) and thus subject to penalty under Section 221(1).

Tribunal's Analysis:
- Statutory Provisions: The Tribunal noted the amendment to Section 140A(3) effective from 01.04.1989, which changed the provision from allowing penalty imposition to deeming the assessee in default for non-payment of self-assessment tax. The legislative intent, as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 549, was to replace penalty with mandatory interest for such defaults.
- Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal relied on decisions in Heddle Knowledge (P) Ltd. and Balraj Prakashchand Bansal, which held that post-amendment Section 140A(3) does not envisage penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax.
- Financial Constraints: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee faced serious financial constraints, as evidenced by the lack of liquidity and the fact that the interest income was not actually received but accrued on investments made for a specific project.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, concluding that:
1. Post-amendment Section 140A(3) does not permit penalty imposition for non-payment of self-assessment tax.
2. The assessee's financial constraints constituted a reasonable cause for non-payment, justifying the deletion of the penalty.

Order:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals for both A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders.

Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 21.10.2021.

---