COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SAYAJI IRON & ENGG CO PVT LTD.

ITR/104/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010728198610 September 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the decision of the Tribunal was based on concurrent findings of the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal. Both appellate authorities had concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the estimate and paying advance tax. The Court noted that the advance tax was paid before the close of the financial year. Given these concurrent findings of fact regarding sufficient cause for the delay, the Court held that the Tribunal's decision did not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring the opinion of the High Court. Therefore, the Court declined to answer the referred questions. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the Court declined to adjudicate on the referred questions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sayaji Iron & Engg Co Pvt Ltd., is in dispute with the Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 1977-78. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 273(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for late filing of an estimate under section 212(3A) read with section 211. Although advance tax was paid in time, the estimate was filed on March 5, 1977, instead of December 5, 1976. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 42,707/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals), arguing that the delay was due to officers, directors, and their relatives being busy with the 'Baroda Dynamite case'. The CIT(Appeals) found this explanation satisfactory and deleted the penalty. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, leading to this reference by the revenue.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three questions referred by the revenue: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer under section 273(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for late filing of the estimate under section 212(3A) read with section 211 of the Act? 2. Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal in deleting the penalty imposed under section 273(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not based on extraneous ground and factors, since a new case was altogether made out for the first time before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? 3. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in permitting the assessee to make out altogether a new ground for justifying the delay in late filing of the estimate under section 212(3A) of the I.T. Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that there was no shortfall between the assessed tax and the advance tax paid. The delay in filing the estimate was due to the preoccupation of key personnel with the 'Baroda Dynamite case', which constituted a valid reason for the delay. The CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal accepted this explanation. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was based on extraneous grounds and that a new case was made out for the first time before the Tribunal. They also argued that the Tribunal was wrong in permitting the assessee to raise a new ground for justifying the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 273(c),Section 212(3A),Section 211

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 104 of 1986

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 211

All 35 judgments and leading authorities on Section 211 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →