AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the penalty imposed by the income-tax authorities was not in accordance with law and direction was made on the appellants to withdraw and/or cancel the demand notice for realisation of the penalty first for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66. From a perusal of the judgment under appeal, it appears to us that the writ petition was allowed and imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was quashed only on the ground that the imposition of penalty was without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the interest was paid for late filing of the return for the aforesaid years. It was further held that the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act could not be imposed against the writ petitioner/respondent as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax, had no jurisdiction to impose such penalty on the writ petitioner/respondent. However, before us the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent did not question the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to impose penalty on the writ petitioner for not filing the return within the extended time, that was granted by the concerned authority. In this case, there is no dispute th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat in view of the admitted fact that there was no application for extension of time for the second time, the decisions cited by Dr. Pal could not apply. In our view, the ratio of these decisions could not be applied as the interest was not charged by the Assessing Officer in his assessment orders for the aforesaid periods. From a perusal of the aforesaid decisions of different High Courts of India, it appears to us that in these decisions facts were completely different. In these decisions, admittedly, interest was charged and paid by the assessee along with the amount due as taxes in the present case on a perusal of the assessment order. We do not find that the interest was at all charged in not filing the return nor in the assessment year there was any question of payment of interest by the asses-see on the amount due from the assessment order. In that view of the matter, the principles on which the aforesaid decisions were rendered could not be applied in the admitted facts of this case. That being the position, we are unable to agree with the learned trial judge that the imposition of penalty after the income-tax dues have been paid with interest for not filing the return in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... late filing of the returns for the aforesaid years; and (b) that the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act could not be imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax as he had no jurisdiction to do so and, only the Income-tax Officer was competent to impose penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(a) of the Act. During the course of arguments, counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee before the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant herein, did not dispute the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to impose the penalty for not filing the returns within the extended period. The Division Bench recorded the following findings "However, before us the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent did not question the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to impose penalty on the writ petitioner for not filing the return within the extended time, that was granted by the concerned authority." On the aforementioned first point, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that mere deposit of interest would not absolve the assessee from its liability to pay the penalty under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be, or" Under this provision, in essence, three situations are contemplated in which penalty can be imposed, i.e., (i) where the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139; (ii) or where the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish by notice given under sub-section (2) of section 139 or section 148; and (iii) or where the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by sub-section (1) of section 139. The following chart would indicate the dates on which the returns were required to be filed, the extended time/date within which they were to be filed and the dates on which they were actually filed. Year Date on which the return ought to have been filed The time was extended to file the return Date on which return actually filed 1959-60 18-06-1959 14-11-1959 04-02-1961 1960-61 20-06-1960 01-10-1962 30-08-1962 1961-62 30-06-1961 31-08....