Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varinder Kumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 29 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1985]156ITR482(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 141, 143(3) and 271(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentVarinder Kumar
Appellant Advocate Ashok Bhan, Senior Adv. and; Ajay Mittal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Bhagirath Dass, Senior Adv. and; Romesh Kumar, Adv.
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........50 per cent. of the tax'. by the amendment brought about in the year 1974, instead of the words 'tax payable', the words 'tax assessed' were substituted. a division bench of this court in cit v. mangat ram kuthiala [1978] 111 itr 823, while interpreting the said provision held that the said amendment has been made retrospective and has to be deemed to have always been in force. the same view was reiterated in cit v. patram dass raja ram ben , and it was held that the amount paid under provisional assessment under section 23b of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (now section 141 of the income-tax act, 1961), cannot be deducted for calculating the penalty. these references thus stand concluded by the above-noted two decisions of this court and are accordingly answered in the.....
Judgment:

S.P. Goyal, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of two cases, Income-tax References Nos. 29 and 30 of 1977, which involve a common question of law. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts of Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1977 have been noticed.

2. A penalty of Rs. 4,665 was imposed by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for not filing the return in response to the notice issued under Section 139(2) within the period allowed. The amount of penalty was reduced on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 1,555. Before the Tribunal, apart from urging that there was a reasonable excuse for the late filing of the return, the assessee also contended that in addition to the payment of Rs, 1,308 as advance tax, he had also paid a sum of Rs. 8,500 as tax under Section 141 of the Income-tax Act and, as such, the penalty could be imposed, if at all, only on the balance amount of Rs. 3,606 which was payable by him. The plea of reasonable excuse was turned down but the latter contention was upheld by the Tribunal and the penalty was ordered to be imposed at the rate of two per cent. per month on the sum of Rs. 3,606. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this order, got the following question referred for the opinion of this court:

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in calculating the penalty leviable under Section 271(1)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the amount paid by the assessee under Section 141 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was to be deducted from the amount of tax determined under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in order to determine the amount of tax on which the computation of penalty was to be based '

3. The view of the Tribunal was based on the unamended provision of Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, when the words used therein were, 'in addition to the amount of tax, if any, payable by him, a sum equal to two per cent. of the tax for every month during which the default continued but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent. of the tax'. By the amendment brought about in the year 1974, instead of the words 'tax payable', the words 'tax assessed' were substituted. A Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Mangat Ram Kuthiala [1978] 111 ITR 823, while interpreting the said provision held that the said amendment has been made retrospective and has to be deemed to have always been in force. The same view was reiterated in CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Ben , and it was held that the amount paid under provisional assessment under Section 23B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (now Section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961), cannot be deducted for calculating the penalty. These references thus stand concluded by the above-noted two decisions of this court and are accordingly answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //