Patna H.C : once a notice under s. 139(2) of the IT Act, 1961, has been issued to an assessee during the relevant assessment year, there cannot be any penalty under s. 271(l)(a) for the failure to furnish the return under s. 139(1)

High Court Of Patna

CIT vs. Dhanpatram Chhotelal

Section 271(1)(a)

Asst. Year 1973-74

S. K. Jha, Actg, C.J. & S. H. S. Abidi, J.

Taxation Case No. 60 of 1980

17th March, 1988

Counsel Appeared

K. K. Vidyarthi & S. K. Sharan, for the Revenue : G. C. Bharuka & Navaniti Prasad Singh, for the Assessee

BY THE COURT

A statement of the case has been submitted by the CIT, Bihar-II, Ranchi Bench, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that once a notice under s. 139(2) of the IT Act, 1961, has been issued to an assessee during the relevant assessment year, there cannot be any penalty under s. 271(l)(a) for the failure to furnish the return under s. 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?”

Learned counsel appearing for the parties are agreed that in similar circumstances and more or less on identical facts, this Court had taken a view in favour of the Revenue in Taxation Case No. 49 of 1980 (CIT vs. Baldeo Choudhary Vijay Kumar-(1988) 172 ITR 453 (Pat)). That judgment, in its turn, was based upon a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Jamunadas Mannalal vs. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 261 (Pat)(FB) wherein the Full Bench had held as follows (p. 289): “To conclude, I hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under s. 271(1) is leviable upon the assessee …… on the basis of tax as an unregistered firm has been validly levied on the assessee for the asst. yr. 1966-67. It is thus obvious that all the questions referred to this Court have to be answered against the assessee. The question as to whether penalty under s. 271(1)(a) could be imposed even after charging interest under s. 139 for delayed submission of return in all its aspects including the broad question as reframed, whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under s. 271(1) is leviable or not is answered in the affirmative.”

In our view, it is futile to go into a detailed discussion of facts. Suffice it to say that the assessment year in question was 1973-74 and the amount of penalty is Rs. 3,520. We, accordingly, hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that there could not be any penalty under s. 271(1) for failure to furnish the return under s. 139(1) of the Act. The question posed before us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, we shall make no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent under the seal of this Court and signature of the Registrar to the Tribunal, Patna, which, we are informed, is the only Bench available throughout the State of Bihar.

[Citation : 172 ITR 454]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security