1987 (1) TMI 187 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms penalty for late tax return filing despite reassessment; rejects plea to exclude income.

KU. SRIPRIYA. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act for a delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year ... - Issues:1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for delay in filing income tax return.2. Legal issues raised regarding the cancellation of original assessment upon reopening under section 148 of the Act.3. Argument related to the inclusion of income from earlier years for penalty calculation.4. New contentions raised by the appellant at the appellate stage.5. Interpretation of legal principles regarding reassessment and penalty imposition.6. Appellant's plea to exclude income from earlier years for penalty calculation.7. Final decision confirming the penalty order by the CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal.Analysis:1. The case involves an appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 1980-81. The penalty was levied by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) due to an eight-month delay without any reasonable cause, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appellant challenged this penalty before the Tribunal.2. The appellant's counsel raised legal issues regarding the impact of reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act on the original assessment. The counsel argued that upon reopening, the original assessment stands canceled, and therefore, any defaults from the original assessment should not justify the penalty under section 271(1)(a). The counsel relied on a decision of the Madras High Court to support this argument. Additionally, the counsel contended that only the income of the assessment year 1980-81 should be considered for calculating the penalty, excluding income from earlier years.3. The departmental representative objected to the new legal contentions raised by the appellant at the Tribunal stage, arguing that these issues were not examined by the departmental authorities previously.4. The Tribunal found the appellant's legal contentions to be purely legal and capable of being decided based on the existing record. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to analyze the appellant's arguments on their merits.5. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Madras High Court regarding reassessment under section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal clarified that the reopening of assessment does not wipe out all defaults from the original assessment proceedings, and the ITO retains the jurisdiction to assess the entire income that had escaped assessment during the relevant year. The Tribunal disagreed with the appellant's interpretation of the legal principles and dismissed the argument that penalty proceedings could not be initiated for defaults from the original assessment.6. The appellant's contention to exclude income from earlier years for the penalty calculation was deemed untenable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had voluntarily filed a revised return for the assessment year 1980-81, including the additions proposed by the ITO for earlier years, which were accepted after verification. The Tribunal held that it was too late for the appellant to argue for the exclusion of such income at the penalty stage.7. Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty and dismissed the appellant's appeal, thereby concluding the case.