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 penalty under section 272A(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable for non-compliance with summons issued under section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the penalty could be sustained for all alleged defaults or only for the summons found to have been refused.
Analysis: Penalty for failure to comply with a statutory summons is not to be imposed mechanically and requires a judicious exercise of discretion. The record showed that the assessee had participated in the investigation and had given a statement, indicating that the case was not one of complete non-compliance. The lower authorities had not recorded an independent satisfaction regarding service of all summonses, and had largely relied on postal and process-server reports without such independent finding. For the first summons, the report showed refusal, attracting a presumption of service under section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For the remaining alleged defaults, the material did not justify sustained penalty in the absence of a satisfactory finding of wilful default.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 272A(1)(c) was upheld only for the first default relating to the summons stated to have been refused, and deleted for the remaining seven alleged defaults.