10 Dy. CIT v. Kamala Mills Ltd.
ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai
Before G. E Veerabhadrappa (VP) &
Ms. Sushma Chowla (JM)
ITA No. 7775-77/Mum./2004
A.Ys. : 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03.
Decided on : 31-10-2007
Counsel for revenue/assessee : Mohit Jain/
Jitendra Jain
S. 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Failure to pay self-assessment tax — Assessee deemed to be in default — assessee offers full explanation for non-payment — Taxes fully paid together with interest — Whether imposition of penalty justified — Held, No.
Per G. E Veerabhadrappa :
Facts :
The assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2000-01 to 2002-03 in time, but did not make the payment of S.A. Tax. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed u/s.221, read with S. 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee explained that it could not make payment due to financial crunch on account of paucity of funds. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation and imposed penalty of Rs.20 lacs for A.Y. 2000-01, Rs.50 lacs for A.Y. 2001-02 and Rs.20 lacs for A.Y. 2002-03.
Being aggrieved, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) who considered the explanation offered by the assessee and deleted the penalty mainly on the following grounds :
(1) Paucity of funds at the material time when S.A. Tax was to be paid does constitute a reasonable cause for the default of non-payment of S.A. Tax.
(2) The assessee has paid the entire tax, together with applicable interest u/s.234B, u/s.234C and u/s.220(2), before show-cause notice u/s.221 was served on the assessee. This shows that the assessee had no mala fide intention to withhold the payment of S.A. Tax.
(3) Initiation of penalty proceedings after a long period is contrary to the spirit of the provisions relating to bar of limitation for imposing penalties and hence imposition of penalty was illegal.
The Department appealed to the ITAT.
Held :
The Tribunal examined the provisions of S. 220(4) and S. 221, together with provisions of S. 140A(3) and came to a conclusion that in the present case, the assessee has paid all the taxes, together with interest and it cannot be held that the assessee is in default or deemed to be in default, and as such, there is no merit in the levy of penalty u/s.221 of the Act, specially when there is no clear provisions for imposition of penalty u/s.140A(3), after the amendment in S. 140A(3) in the year 1987. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the order of CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Errata :
Attention of the readers is drawn to the Tribunal decision reported at Sr. No. 26 in March 2008 issue of the Journal. The last line of the said decision on page no. 638 should be read as “Accordingly, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default.” The error is regretted.