Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

E.E. Minor Irrigation Banda Versus C.I.T. Kanpur

2009 (12) TMI 993 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Income Tax Reference No. 42 of 1999 - Dated:- 17-12-2009 - Prakash Krishna And Subhash Chandra Nigam JJ. S.P. Kesharwani for the Petitioner. B.J. Agarwal for the Respondent. ORDER (Delivered by Prakash Krishna) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad has referred the following question under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for opinion of this Court:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4-1995. Executive Engineer was the prescribed person, as per Section 206 of the Income Tax Act, responsible for furnishing within the prescribed time the returns regarding tax deducted at source under Section 194-C of the Income Tax Act, in Form No.26 C prescribed under Rule 37 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. There was, admittedly, a delay of 1645, 550 and 214 days in furnishing the returns for the financial years 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. The Assessing Officer did not find merit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee that since as per proviso to section 272 A, inserted by the Finance Act, 1991 with effect from 1.10.1991, penalty is not to exceed the amount of tax "Deductible" or "Collectible" and nothing remained to be "deducted" or "collected" in his case, no penalty was exigible. The penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. In appeal before the Tribunal, the contention of the assessee was two-fold. The first plea was that the delay in filin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s no loss of Revenue in the present case. The tax was deducted and was deposited within the statutory time. The only default on the part of the assessee is that the returns were not filed within the prescribed period of time. Elaborating the argument, he submits that the assessee is an instrumentality of State or a government officer wherein the officers have no personal interest and as such the delay in late filing of the return should not have been attracted the penal clause and the power not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

how that the penalty has been levied only on the ground that the annual return in the prescribed form was due on or before 30th of June, 1994, whereas the same was filed on 22nd of January, 1996 which is late by 550 days. The facts situation in respect of other financial years is also the same except the period of delay with which the returns were filed. The explanation given by the prescribed person, Executive Officer, was that he was not aware about the filing of the return. The said explanati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version