Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2014 (2) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thousand three hundred and thirty eight only) u/s. 22 1(1) of the Income tax Act 1961, imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer which Your Honour is requested to order to delete and oblige". 2. It may be mentioned here that there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. 3. According to computation of income filed along with return the assessee was required to pay an amount of Rs.5,13,380/- on account of self assessment tax payable under section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act). The return was filed on 28/9/2009. However, self assessment tax was not paid. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1-02 2,907,272.00 - 0 2,907,272.00 2002-03 - 47,282.00 48 2,269,536.00 2003-04 1,900,000.00 41,010.00 48 2,868,480.00 2004-05 - 12,361.00 39 482,079.00 Total 5,509,840.00 197,860.00   14,895,871.00 The chart is placed at page 7 of the paper book and details of payments made in respect of aforementioned installments are placed at page 8 to 16 of the paper book. It is the case of Ld. AR that default of the assessee in non-payment of self assessment tax was a venial breach of provisions of law. It was not deliberate and according to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26, no penalty should have been levied. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 221(1) are penalty proceedings, therefore, are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings. Such penalty is leviable in respect of failure of the assessee to carry out a statutory obligation and according to aforementioned decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court such penalty should not be ordinarly imposed unless the party obliged, either acted, deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct of contumacious or dishonest, or acted in a conscious disregard of its obligation. It is also held that penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. It is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judiciously and on consideration of the relevant circumstances. It is also held that even if minimum penalty i....