Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 1075 - ITAT NAGPURPenalty proceedings for a default committed by a deceased - proceedings to be continued against the legal representatives or not? - Levy of penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of Tax Audit Report [‘TAR’] within the prescribed time limit u/s 44AB r.w.s. 139(1) - HELD THAT:- As s/s (4) of section 159 of the Act only empowers recovery of ‘the tax’ liability to the extent of estate of deceased assessee succeeded by LR. The conjoint reading of s/s (1) and s/s (4) of section 159 suggests that in case of death of assessee, ‘the tax’ subject to estate of deceased assessee delved could only be recovered (if any) from the legal representative. Conversely nothing other than tax can be fastened to the estate succeeded by the LR. The honourable High Courts and Apex Court in catena of judicial precedents has held that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. In criminal jurisprudence, a crime dies with a man and the legal representative of the deceased offender or criminal cannot be penalised for the offences or crimes committed by the deceased. As such penalty proceedings are different and distinct in nature than tax while tax are price paid for buying civilisation whereas the penalties are levied for the contumacious conduct of the wrong doer therefore such penalty proceedings abate on the death of the assessee. If recovery of , penalty is permitted against the estate of deceased, then it would clearly lead to permitting the enforcement of crime against the right of LR in succeeded estate. In view of the decision of Taraknath Gayen and others [1987 (5) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA] & ‘Omwati Vs UOI’ [1971 (11) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD] as held that, the penalty amount is not recoverable from the legal representatives of accused; as imposition of penalty is intended to penalise the accused, therefore, recovery of penalty from the legal representatives would amount to punishing the legal representatives. It is also in our knowledge that the co-ordinate benches in similar circumstance deleted the penalty in viz; ‘Bhuban Mohan Mitter Charitable Trust [1991 (12) TMI 100 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D] and in ‘Bhagwansingh Shriramsingh L/H Dinesh Bhagwan Singh [2006 (5) TMI 270 - ITAT MUMBAI] Thus as per restriction placed in s/s (4) of section 159 of the Act and further adopting the reasoning laid in ‘Taraknath Gayen and others Vs CEGAT’ & & ‘Omwati Vs UOI’ (supra) we set-aside the impugned order and direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty. Decided in favour of assessee.
|