Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1979 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1979 (11) TMI 130 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 273(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to file estimate of advance tax and pay tax accordingly.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Gauhati involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 3,000 on the assessee, a registered firm, for the assessment year 1977-78 under section 273(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and upheld by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (AAC) in appeal by the assessee.

During the assessment proceedings, the ITO found that the assessed income of the assessee was significantly higher than the advance tax paid, leading to the issuance of a notice for imposition of penalty under section 273(c) of the Act. The assessee contended that the failure to file an estimate of advance tax was due to a bona fide belief that past losses could be adjusted against the current year's income.

The ITO imposed the penalty, considering the failure intentional, despite the assessee's explanation. In the subsequent appeal before the AAC, the penalty imposition was upheld, stating that the default was without any reasonable cause. The AAC emphasized the importance of complying with tax obligations and rejected the assessee's explanations.

In the second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee reiterated its arguments, emphasizing its sincere payment of taxes and the belief regarding past losses adjustment. The Tribunal carefully considered the facts and legal precedents. It noted that the assessee had fulfilled its tax obligations promptly and consistently maintained its belief regarding past losses adjustment.

The Tribunal highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of penalty proceedings and the burden on the Department to establish prima facie evidence of liability for the penalty. It concluded that the Department failed to discharge this initial burden, and the facts did not justify the penalty imposition. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the orders of the lower authorities, allowing the appeal by the assessee.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates