1991 (7) TMI 159 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal cancels penalty under IT Act, 1961 due to lack of clear refusal evidence.

NARESH MEHTA. Versus APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.

The Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed under s. 272A of the IT Act, 1961, as there was no evidence of a clear refusal by the appellant to sign a ... - Issues:Imposition of fine under s. 272A of the IT Act, 1961 for refusal to sign a statement in the course of proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant had applied for a no objection certificate for a property purchase but faced delays in the process. The appropriate authority issued a summons for a statement, but the appellant sought an adjournment due to travel plans. The authority later alleged a refusal to sign the statement, leading to a penalty under s. 272A.2. The appellant argued that there was no actual refusal to sign the statement, only a request for time to consult his brother. Additionally, since the main proceedings were quashed, the subsidiary proceeding lost its basis. The appellant contended that any default was minor and the penalty was excessive.3. The Revenue asserted that the failure to sign the statement constituted an offense warranting a penalty to deter non-compliance with legal requirements.4. The Tribunal examined the situation under s. 272A(1)(b) and found no evidence of a clear refusal by the appellant to sign the statement. The appellant had left before the statement was typed, and subsequent actions by the authority indicated an understanding of the situation.5. The Tribunal noted that the authority had granted time for the appellant to sign the statement, indicating a lack of a definitive refusal. Even when the appellant was unavailable on a later date, there was no explicit refusal to sign, only a request to keep the matter on hold due to pending legal challenges.6. By the time the penalty order was issued, the High Court had directed the authority to grant the no objection certificate, rendering the statement irrelevant. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under s. 272A is for a refusal to sign, not merely for an unsigned statement.7. Citing the Supreme Court's stance in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal emphasized that penalties should be imposed for deliberate defiance or contumacious conduct, not technical or minor breaches. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that no refusal to sign the statement occurred, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.8. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed under s. 272A due to the absence of a genuine refusal by the appellant to sign the statement.