1981 (8) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide in an appeal against an order of the Income-tax Officer under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Proper interpretation of section 220(6) read with section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) to decide in an appeal against an order of the Income-tax Officer under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main issue was the proper interpretation of section 220(6) in conjunction with section 221 of the Act. The facts of the case revolved around an assessee-company that failed to pay the tax demanded by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) by the specified date. The ITO subsequently levied a penalty for non-payment of tax, which was challenged by the assessee-company in an appeal to the AAC.

The AAC, in his order, considered the issues raised in the appeal against the original assessment and observed that the ITO should have exercised his discretion under section 220(6) in favor of the appellant. The AAC quashed the penalty levied by the ITO, stating that the request for stay of recovery proceedings was not unreasonable given the circumstances. The ITO appealed this decision to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the AAC's decision.

The Tribunal held that in an appeal from the penalty imposed under section 221, the AAC had the authority to consider whether the assessee was in default, including reviewing the ITO's exercise of discretion under section 220(6). The Tribunal emphasized that the primary question was whether the assessee was in default, with the quantum of penalty being a subsidiary issue. It concluded that the appeal should not be restricted only to the quantum of penalty but should also address the basis of imposition of penalty, which could be challenged by questioning the ITO's failure to exercise discretion under section 220(6).

The High Court, agreeing with the Tribunal's interpretation, held that the AAC had the authority to review the ITO's decision under section 220(6) in an appeal from the penalty imposed under section 221. The Court emphasized that the question of default by the assessee was the primary issue to be decided in such an appeal, and the quantum of penalty was a subsidiary question. The Court ruled in favor of the Tribunal, affirming that the AAC could consider the ITO's exercise of discretion under section 220(6 in the appeal against the penalty under section 221.