JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Pradeep Agarwal and Sri P. J. Pardiwalla, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by means of which the penalty imposed under the Interest-tax Act by the assessing authority has been set aside.
3. The admitted facts as emerged from the record and stated by learned Counsel for the parties are that the assessee-financial company was required to file a return up to December 31, 1995. Since the return was not furnished a notice under Section 10(a) of the Act was issued to the assessee on April 15, 1996, requiring it to furnish a return of chargeable interest within 30 days. But finding failure on the part of the assessee which did not comply with the aforesaid direction, a second notice was issued on September 24, 1996. The assessee-company filed a return on October 31, 1996. The company has shown an amount of Rs. 46,13,91,700 as total chargeable interest whereas the assessment was made under Section 8(2) of the Act on February 4, 1997, determining the chargeable interest at Rs. 50,44,91,718.
4. The assessee-company preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and after giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it was again determined at Rs. 46,13,91,700. This is the amount that was shown in the return furnished by the company itself.
5. The assessing authority, however, issued a notice for imposing penalty under Section 13 of the Act as according to him the return having not been filed by the due date given under Section 7 of the Act, it would attract the penal provision in the same manner as in a case under the Income-tax Act non-filing of the return of income can be taken as escaped income from assessment. On the aforesaid premise the assessing authority imposed the penalty. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellate authority found that the reasoning given by the assessing authority for invoking the penalty clause relying upon Section 13 of the Interest-tax Act and Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, no penalty could have been imposed under the Interest-tax Act. The appellate authority also found that the total amount of chargeable interest as given in the return was in conformity with the order passed in appeal in the matter of assessment and that the "Explanation" which applies under the Income-tax Act could not be attracted in the case of the Interest-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax recorded a finding that non-filing of the return voluntarily and filing the same by the assessee only after a notice was issued under Section 10 of the Act cannot be taken to be concealment of chargeable interest and that there was no basis for imposing penalty on the appellant. In appeal filed by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the aforesaid finding and dismissed the appeal.
6. We have gone through the record and find that the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal does not call for any interference nor any substantial question of law is involved. The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Agarwal that non-filing of the return voluntarily under Section 7 of the Act would entail the provision for imposing penalty under Section 13 of the Interest-tax Act, cannot be supported nor does it flow from the provision of the Interest-tax Act. There is no gainsaying that the view taken by the two appellate authorities that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act or the Explanation attached to Section 148 of the Income-tax Act which is a separate and independent Act could not have been invoked for the purpose of levying penalty under the Interest-tax Act, does not suffer from any illegality.
7. Equally we do not find any force in the aforesaid argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the tax would be charged on the difference of the chargeable amount as against the amount so disclosed in the return and as determined by the assessing authority. The argument appears to be based on some misconception as the record itself shows and as submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the return furnished by the assessee did show the amount of Rs. 46 crores odd and in assessment it was enhanced but finally the assessment was made of the same amount which has been furnished by the assessee on effect being given to the order passed in appeal. That being so, this cannot be a ground for entertaining the appeal.
8. The appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed.