AMIN CHAND PAYARELAL vs. INSPECTING ASSTI. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX AND ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4114/2001Supreme Court2006 INSC 57905 September 2006Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: ASHOK BHAN, MARKANDEY KATJU B AMIN CHAND PAY ARELAL7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Amin Chand Payarelal, filed a writ petition challenging assessment and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66. The appellant had filed returns beyond the extended period allowed. A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the penalty, holding it was imposed without jurisdiction as interest for late filing had been paid and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order and dismissed the writ petition. The appellant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows an assessee to file a return any time before assessment is made, does not absolve the assessee from the liability to pay penalty under Section 271(1)(a). The Court affirmed the High Court's Division Bench's view that the mere deposit of interest for late filing does not absolve the assessee from penalty. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Pradip Lamps Works v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2001) 249 ITR 797, which held that even if a return is filed within the period permissible under Section 139(4), the imposition of penalty is justified if there was a delay for the purpose of Section 271(1)(a). The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified when the assessee has filed returns beyond the extended period allowed under Section 139(4) of the Act, but has paid the requisite interest for late filing. Assessee's contention (implied from the Single Judge's reasoning and the appeal): The payment of interest for late filing should absolve the assessee from penalty under Section 271(1)(a), and the penalty was imposed without jurisdiction. Revenue's contention (implied from the Division Bench's decision and the Supreme Court's ruling): The provision allowing filing of returns under Section 139(4) before assessment does not erase the liability to pay penalty under Section 271(1)(a), even if interest is paid. The jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty was not disputed before the Division Bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(4),Section 271(1)(a),Section 139(1),Section 139(2),Section 148,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B AMIN CHAND PAY ARELAL v. INSPECTING ASSTI. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 [ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961--Sections 139(4) and 271(/)(a)-Filing of return beyond the extended period under s.139(4)-Penalty-lmposition of- C Justification-Held: Provision that assessee may file return any time before assessment is made would not absolve assessee from the liability to pay penalty-Even if assessee deposits interest for late filing, penalty, could be levied under s.271 (/)(a).

The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was D that when return has been filed beyond the extended period for filing under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee has paid interest for the late filing, whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act could be levied thereon. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for a situation where the returns are not filed by an assessee within the time allowed or within the extended period for filing such returns. Merely because sub-section (4) of Section 139 enable the assessee to file his

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(4)

All 892 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →