High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. G.S.R. Krishnamurthy (HUF)
Section 273(2)(b)
Asst. Year 1982-83
R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.
Tax Case No. 405 of 1999
20th March, 2003
Counsel Appeared :
Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Revenue : P.P.S. Janardhana Raja, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. :
The assessment year is 1982-83. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our consideration :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 273(2)(b) of the IT Act, 1961, in this case for the asst. yr. 1982-83 ?”
2. The assessee is an HUF. It filed its first income-tax return on 30th Sept., 1986, for the asst. yr. 1982-83, in which year there was a search in the premises which subsequently resulted in the assessee admitting an additional income of Rs. 8,25,000. The assessee had also sought protection under the amnesty scheme. The Tribunal had held that the assessee was eligible for such protection. The assessee was subjected to penalty under s. 273(2)(b) of the Act by the AO for not having furnished the estimate of the advance tax payable. Though, the CIT(A) had upheld that penalty, the Tribunal set aside the same. The reasons given by the Tribunal for setting aside the order of the CIT(A), in its own words, are : “During this period, it is possible that the assessee was weighing the pros and cons of submitting evidence to explain the source of income, which were contained in the sheet found during the course of search and reproduced in para 12 above, or to buy peace by taking advantage under the amnesty scheme. The assessee abandoned the idea of explaining the source of income for extra consideration but opted to seek the benefits under the amnesty scheme. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the assessee had reasons to file the return belatedly and for non-payment of advance tax. We are also inclined to follow the finding of the Tribunal in its order dt. 1st May, 1987, regarding the amnesty scheme.”
3. The levy of penalty under s. 273(2)(b) is a matter of discretion. The discretion available to the AO was equally available to the appellate authorities. The Tribunal having chosen to exercise the discretion in favour of the assessee for reasons with which we may not wholly concur, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with that exercise of discretion on the sole ground that had this Court exercised that discretion, it would have done so in a different manner. The Tribunal has adopted a very generous and liberal approach in this matter, but that by itself would not suffice for us to hold that the decision taken by it is not in accordance with law. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee.
[Citation : 265 ITR 260]
