Section 272A(1)(c) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 272A(1)(c), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
P. Murali Mohana Rao v Addl. CIT, Range-1, Hyderabad
ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
The Additional Commissioner has levied Rs 30,000 on me personally, as the chartered accountant representing my client, for not attending on three dates in answer to section 131 summons. Does he even have the power to pass that order?
On this reasoning, no. Because section 272A(1) imposes Rs 10,000 for each default, the penalty in law was Rs 10,000 per default and not Rs 30,000 in aggregate; and on the thresholds in section 274(2) a penalty of that amount is for the Income-tax Officer to impose, so the Tribunal held the Addl. CIT had no jurisdiction to pass the order. It also held there was reasonable cause under section 273B, that one show-cause notice cannot support penalties for three separate defaults, and that the completion of the client's assessment under section 143(3) rather than section 144 showed the subsequent compliance was good compliance.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.