COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. A RAJESH & CO.,

ITR/272/1992HC GujaratGJHC24015612199216 October 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, while considering the reference at the instance of the revenue, noted that the notice issued to the respondent-assessee was unserved. In light of this circumstance and considering the small amounts of penalties involved, the Court declined to answer the question referred to it. Consequently, the references were disposed of without any order as to costs. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the Tribunal's decision regarding the cancellation of the penalty under Section 271(1)(a).

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) has referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat concerning penalties levied under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment years involved are 1983-84 and 1984-85. The Income Tax Officer had imposed penalties of Rs. 8,958/- and Rs. 3,346/- respectively for delay in filing the return. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had deleted these penalties. The grounds for deletion were that the advance tax paid by the assessee firm exceeded the assessed tax, and the assessments resulted in refunds, which constituted a reasonable cause for the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) for delay in filing return on the ground that advance tax paid by the assessee firm was more than the assessed tax? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision, as stated in the facts, was that the excess advance tax paid and the resulting refund constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, leading to the cancellation of the penalty. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel Mr. Akil Qureshi, has approached the High Court seeking to challenge the Tribunal's decision. The Revenue's implicit contention is that the Tribunal erred in law and on facts by cancelling the penalty solely on the ground of excess advance tax payment and refund, despite the delay in filing the return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 272 & 272-A of 1992

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO

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 271(1)(a)

All 62 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →