C.I.T. JDR. vs. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.C. PHAGWARA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in reducing the penalty. The Court noted that the tax was duly paid in time, and the violation was of a technical nature, not deliberate or intentional. Reasonable cause was shown for the default, which was technical. Therefore, the imposition of a token penalty was justified. The question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The assessee, the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Phagwara, filed its income tax return for assessment year 1989-90 on January 22, 1991, significantly after the due date of May 31, 1989. However, the tax due was paid within the stipulated time. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced this penalty to Rs. 500/-. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The revenue has filed a reference to the High Court challenging the Tribunal's decision.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in reducing the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act from Rs. 25,432/- to Rs. 500/-, when the law prescribes only maximum and minimum limits and does not contain a provision for levy of a token penalty? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The penalty had to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and could not be a token penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, 'the Tribunal) arising out of its order dated 24.12.1993 in ITA No.500(ASR)/1993, for the assessment year 1989-90:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in reducing the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act from Rs.25,432/- to Rs.500/- when the law prescribes only maximum and minimum limits and does not contain a provision for levy of a token penalty?” The assessee filed its return in the prescribed form on 22.1.1991, though the last date was 31.5.1989. The assessee had, however, already paid the tax within the stipulated time. The Assessing officer imposed penalty. The CIT(A) having regard to admitted facts, imposed token penalty of Rs.500/-, which was upheld by the Tribunal. Only contention raised on behalf of the revenue is that penalty had to be calculated at the rate of Rs.100/- per day under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and could not be a token penalty.
ITR No.147 of 1995 2 In the present case, tax was duly deducted and paid in time, the violation was held to be only of technical nature and not deliberate or intentional. Reasonable cause having been shown for default, which is technical in nature, in our view, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order passed by the CIT(A) in reducing the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Act. The question is, accordingly, answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 8, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge
More judgments on Section 272A(2)(c)
- Sunil Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central…ITA 4576/MUM/2026[2002-03]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2002-03
- Kmp Expressways Limited, New Delhi vs JCIT, TDS-Range-75, DelhiITA 4224/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2012-13
- Vikas Agarwal, Bulandshahr vs ACIT, Central Circle, MeerutITA 6486/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
- Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, NagpurITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
- Sub Registrar, Tamkuhiraj, Kushinagar vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 347/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: Fixed5 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026