MIRI LAL MULK RAJ Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an appeal by the assessee which challenges the levy of penalty on it under Section 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a sum of Rs. 5,000 by the Assessing Officer, reduced to Rs. 3,000 during first appeal.
(2.) The learned authorised representative for the assessee contended before me that, firstly, the Assessing Officer failed to express his intention of initiating penalty in question in the assessment order and, secondly, the turnover of the assessee also did not exceed Rs. 2,50,000 as contemplated by Clause (fi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 44AA of the Act and as such penalty was not tenable.
The learned Departmental Representative, opposing, submitted that unlike certain other provisions such as Section 271 of the Act, penalty was not necessarily required to be initiated by the Assessing Officer "in the course of any proceedings under this Act". This meant, it was contended, that penalty under Section 271Aas also under Section 27IB could be initiated even off the assessment made by the Assessing Officer on an assessee.
(3.) PATENTLY this submission carries force. The legislative intent is manifest by the plain wordings used in Section 271 A or, for that matter, also Section 27IB on the one hand and, on the other, provisions such as Section 271 of the Act. While in the latter case penalty is initiable only in the course of any proceeding under the Income-tax Act, such an embargo does not apply to the former group of cases. The objection taken by the assessee is, as such, overruled.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.