1982 (9) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The validity of the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to non-payment of advance tax demanded under section 210(3) for the assessment year 1965-66.

Summary:

The assessee was penalized for non-payment of advance tax demanded under section 210(3) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1965-66. The penalty imposition was challenged by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) on various grounds. The AAC accepted two contentions of the assessee: lack of a valid show-cause notice before penalty imposition and invalidity of the advance tax demand computation made without a show-cause notice under section 154. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the AAC's decision on the first contention and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal did not address the second contention. The High Court considered whether the penalty order was valid, focusing on procedural compliance and the validity of the advance tax demand. The Court held that the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) provided a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to show cause, thus complying with the proviso to section 221(1). The Court also noted the need for the Tribunal to address all grounds for penalty invalidation raised by the AAC. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for further adjudication on the remaining contentions raised by the assessee.

The High Court emphasized that the notice issued by the ITO, allowing the assessee to pay the advance tax and show cause for non-payment, constituted substantial compliance with the proviso to section 221(1). The Court highlighted that the assessee had the opportunity to provide reasons for the default in payment, whether through a composite notice or a separate one. The Court also referenced section 292B, which validates proceedings if they conform to the intent of the Income-tax Act. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, finding the penalty order valid based on the notice issued by the ITO. However, the Court directed the Tribunal to address the other grounds for penalty invalidation raised by the AAC, as the Tribunal had not considered them due to upholding the penalty invalidity on different grounds.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the validity of the penalty order based on procedural compliance but directed the Tribunal to reconsider the other grounds for penalty invalidation raised by the assessee. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for further adjudication on the remaining contentions.