THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -I MUMBAI vs. M/S. DODSAL LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/30/2008HC Bombay02 July 2008Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.U. CHANDIWAL4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the language used in Section 158BFA(2), specifically the word "may", confers discretion on the Assessing Officer to direct payment of penalty. The Court found that the proviso to the sub-section further supports this interpretation, indicating that if the authority decides to impose a penalty, then it will be within a specified range. The Court rejected the Revenue's submission that the provision is mandatory, stating that the use of "shall not be less than" or "not exceeding" in the penalty range does not render the initial part of the section mandatory. The Court also noted that both the CIT(A) and ITAT had recorded reasons for exercising their discretion, and the Revenue had not challenged these findings of fact. Therefore, the High Court upheld the ITAT's view that the section is directory and not mandatory. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as the question framed would not arise.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted a penalty levied under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on M/s. Dodsal Ltd. (Respondent). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously allowed the assessee's appeal and cancelled the penalty, considering the assessee's explanation that tax on undisclosed income was paid before assessment completion, among other reasons. The ITAT, in its order, held that the power conferred by Section 158BFA(2) was directory, not mandatory, and that the word "may" should not be read as "shall". The High Court noted that the findings of fact by the ITAT and CIT(A) regarding reasons for delay in paying tax were not assailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the 1st proviso to Section 158BFA(2)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in interpreting the condition stipulated in the 1st proviso to Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as directory and not mandatory? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty because the assessee failed to comply with the conditions of the 1st proviso to Section 158BFA(2). The Revenue contended that the provision is mandatory and that once a breach of Section 158BFA(1) is established, penalty should be imposed. The Revenue relied on the language "shall not be less than" and "shall not exceed" in the section.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BFA(2),Section 158BC,Section 158BFA(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Dodsal Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. B.M.Chatterjee with Mrs.Poonam Bhosale for the Appellant. Mr. Atul Jasani with Mr. P.C. Tripathi for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED: JULY 02, 2008 DATED: JULY 02, 2008 DATED: JULY 02, 2008 ORAL JUDMENT (Per F.I. Rebello,J.): . Admit on the following two questions : "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 158 BFA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the 1st proviso to Section 158 BFA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in interpreting the condition stipulated in the 1st proviso to Section 158 BFA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as directory and not mandatory?" CNR No : HCBM020283552007 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:51:20

2.

C.I.T. by its order dated 15.10.2003 allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and cancelled the penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act. While considering the deletion of penalty, C.I.T. considered, the explanation given by the assessee that tax had been paid on the undisclosed income before the completion of the assessment. Various other reasons have also been rendered. . In the appeal before I.T.A.T., the learned tribunal in Para 3.4 after considering the terminology of the section was pleased to hold that the power conferred is directory and not mandatory and that the word "may" cannot be read as "shall". The learned tribunal also has considered the reasons as to why the penalty should not be invoked. 3. In the present appeal, the findings of fact by I.T.A.T. and C.I.T. regarding reasons for delay in paying tax have not been assailed. The only question raised before us is whether the said provision is directory or mandatory. We have perused the relevant provision which read as under : "158BFA(2) : The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:51:20

three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC." . The language used under Section 158BFA(2) is may direct the person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable, but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under Clause (c) of section 158BC. . The terminology of the said section makes it clear that there is a discretion in the Assessing Officer to direct payment of penalty. The proviso supports this interpretation. Only if the authority decides to impose penalty then, it will not be less than the tax leviable but shall not exceed three times the tax so leviable. It is therefore, not possible to accept the submission on behalf of the Revenue that once the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of the mandate of Section 158BFA(1), then the penalty should be imposed. Merely because the expression used is shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable or not exceeding three times the tax, does not result in reading the first part of the section as mandatory. The proviso to the sub section makes it clear that there is discretion conferred on the Commissioner for the reasons which are set out therein. Whilst considering taxing statute, the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:51:20

Supreme Court has held that it is settled law that the expressions used in a taxing statute would ordinarily be understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative intention. It is equally settled law that, if the language is plain and unambiguous, one can look fairly at the language used and interpret it to give effect to the legislative intention. Tax law, nevertheless, have to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice adopting a purposive approach. See Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 196 ITR 149. In the instant case, both C.I.T. and I.T.A.T. have recorded reasons for exercise of their discretion. Before us the Revenue has not challenged the said finding of fact as to the exercise of discretionary power. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by I.T.A.T. that the section is directory and not mandatory. 4. In the light of that, the question as framed would not arise. Consequently, appeal disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:51:20 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 158BFA(2)

All 71 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BFA(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →