| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 866 1982 SLD 866 (1982) 134 ITR 338 |
Madhya Pradesh High Court
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 652 OF 1972
A.P. SEN, C.J. AND, J.S. VERMA, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 652 OF 1972
A.P. SEN, C.J. AND, J.S. VERMA, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Ramlal Ramgopal Agarwal
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 271(1)(a) , read with section 139 of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Penalty - For late filing of return - Assessment year 1963-64 - Whether where department takes view that delay in filing return by assessee was without a reasonable cause, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) in addition to recovery of interest under sub-clause (iii) of proviso to section 139(1) would be legal and valid - Held, yes - Whether penalty imposed on an assessee under section 271(1)(a) would be legal and valid even though assessee had filed return within time allowed under sub-section (4) of section 139 - Held, yes FACTS The ITO made the assessment and required the assessee-firm to pay interest in accordance with sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 on account of the delay in filing the return. In addition to require the assessee-firm to pay interest in this manner, the ITO rejected the explanation given by the assessee for the delay and imposed a penalty on the it under section 271(1)(a). The AAC affirmed the ITO's order. Before the Tribunal the assessee contended that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) was illegal and invalid because the same was in addition to the recovery of interest under sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) section 139. The assessee also contended that when it had filed the return of income within the time allowed under the provisions of section 139(4), the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) was not legal. The Tribunal, however, rejected the assessee's contention and upheld the order of penalty. On reference : HELD It is settled that one and the same A ct may give rise to more than one liability or obligation under different provisions of law and the adverse consequences so resulting cannot be challenged on the ground that more than one adverse consequence cannot result from one act. Therefore, the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(a) in addition to recovery of interest under sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 is legal and valid, provided the department takes the view that the delay in filing the return was without a reasonable cause. Even in the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492