MADAN LAL MAHAVEER PRASAD Vs. ITAT RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition relates to proceedings carried out for levy of penalty under Section 271-E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act') in respect of a default under Section 269-T of 1961 Act for which the penalty of RS. 25,000/- was levied by the respondent authorities in terms of Section 271- E of 1961 Act upon the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm seeks to quash the impugned orders dated November 19, 1993, July 12, 1994 and December 20, 1994.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the petitioner firm had furnished a return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 with the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer processed the return under Section 143 (3) of 1961 Act and except for making routine additions in respect of interest paid to partners to the tune of Rs. 4000/- from out of loss of Rs. 13,484/- claimed in Bardana account and another amount of Rs. 1000/- from out of expenditure incurred for Tea, Coffee etc. and for a balance sheet difference of 87/- the returned figure were accepted by him. By the same order the Income Tax Officer also granted continuation of registration in terms of Section 185 of 1961 Act. The assessment order was passed on January 30, 1991. The Income Tax Officer however initiated proceedings under Section 271-E of 1961 Act in respect of repayment in cash to Shri Heera Lal Gupta vide order dated January 30, 1991. However subsequently the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I. Jaipur issued another notice on July 18, 1991. The petitioner firm filed detailed explanatory note showing exhaustive cause for non levy of penalty, interalia stating it was a case of mere technical defaults and the genuineness of the transaction was never really in dispute. It was suggested on behalf of the petitioner firm that to ensure attendance of Heera Lal Gupta this amount may be attached. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I. Jaipur was not satisfied with the explanatory note and vide order dated July 26, 1991 levied a penalty under Section 271-A of 1961 Act in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Being aggrieved with the order dated July 26, 1991 of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rajasthan I, Jaipur, who vide order dated February 14, 1992 allowed the appeal of petitioner firm. The respondent thereafter assailed the order of Commissioner by filing the appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `itat' ). The ITAT vide order dated November 19, 1993 came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case levy of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- would meet ends of justice.

(3.) IN the instant case the petitioner, has failed to show the reasonable cause in contravening the provisions contained in section 269t, therefore, ITAT was right in passing the impugned judgment. IN my opinion, this is not a fit case warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.