1980 (5) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... J.-The following question has been referred to us for our opinion: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in imposing a penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the assessee for the late filing of the return as alleged? " The assessee, Bhagirath Prasad, for the assessment year 1960-61 filed his return of income on July 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under s. 271(1)(a) was 50 per cent. of the tax levied or to be levied, the penalty imposed was clearly justified. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26, the Supreme Court laid down the law that whether penalty should be imposed for a failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome-tax. This indeed is a vexed question and it cannot be attributed to the assessee that he had wilfully tried to suppress his income from the sale of land. In our opinion the case would be covered by the rule in Hindustan Steel Ltd.'s case [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC). We are, accordingly, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty was imposable for filing the return bel....