Court allows waiver of penalty for non-payment of tax if reasonable cause shown under Section 140A(3)

The court held that penalty under Section 140A(3) for non-payment of tax on admitted income can be waived if the assessee shows sufficient cause. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty without considering the reasonable cause presented was deemed incorrect. The court emphasized that penalty imposition is not automatic and should only occur if the assessee fails to demonstrate reasonable cause for non-payment. The judgment favored the assessee and dismissed the Revenue's contentions, concluding that discretion should be exercised in penalty imposition under Section 140A(3).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether penalty under section 140A(3) for non-payment of tax on admitted income is leviable after holding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for non-payment of the said tax.
2. Whether leniency for assessees having reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment can be shown under law.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty under Section 140A(3) for Non-Payment of Tax on Admitted Income
The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 but failed to pay the balance tax of Rs. 51,531 within one month of filing the return, as required under section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued show-cause notices and, upon receiving no response, levied a penalty of Rs. 12,360 under section 140A(3). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this penalty, and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's financial crisis due to a cyclone in Andhra Pradesh and drought in Karnataka as a reasonable cause for the delay but upheld the penalty, citing that section 140A(3) did not allow leniency for reasonable cause.

Issue 2: Leniency for Assessees Having Reasonable Cause for Non-Payment of Self-Assessment
The Tribunal's decision was challenged, arguing that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and that the authority has discretion if the assessee shows reasonable cause. The Revenue contended that the language of section 140A mandates payment before furnishing the return, leaving no discretion for penalty imposition.

Legal Interpretation of Section 140A:
Section 140A mandates that tax payable based on the return must be paid before furnishing the return, with a penalty provision for defaults. However, the proviso requires giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before levying any penalty. Various High Courts have interpreted this section:
- Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. held that the Income-tax Officer has discretion to impose or waive the penalty based on reasonable cause shown by the assessee.
- Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Free Wheels India Limited emphasized that penalty is not automatic, and the assessee must be given an opportunity to explain the default.
- Madras High Court in CIT v. Mysore Fertiliser Co. stated that the Income-tax Officer has discretion not only on the quantum of penalty but also on whether to impose any penalty at all, based on the assessee's explanation.

Court's Conclusion:
The court concluded that section 140A(3) should be read harmoniously and reasonably, allowing discretion to the authority to waive the penalty if the assessee shows sufficient cause. The Tribunal's refusal to exercise discretion was contrary to the provisions of section 140A(3). The court held that penalty is not an automatic consequence of default and should be imposed only if the assessee fails to show reasonable cause for non-payment.

Final Judgment:
The court answered the referred questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, thereby disposing of the reference.

---