Sections 271 to 279

Penalties and prosecutions

SECTION 271 l FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS/
CONCEALMENT OF INCOME*

1292. Direction to ITO not to initiate penalty proceedings under sections 271 and 273 in respect of assessment if he is satisfied that certain conditions have been fulfilled - Order under section 119(2)(a)

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby direct that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Income-tax Officer shall not initiate any proceedings for the imposition of a penalty under section 271 or section 273 of the said Act in respect of an assessment year if he is satisfied that the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :

  (i)  no regular assessment under the said Act has been made in the case of the assessee before the 1st day of September, 1972, in respect of any assessment year;

(ii)  the assessee has, prior to the issue of a notice him under sub-section (2) of section 139, or section 148 of the said Act for the relevant assessment year, furnished, before the 1st day of March, 1973, a return of his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under the said Act :

Provided that this condition shall not apply in relation to an assessment year in respect of which the assessee has, before the 1st day of January, 1973, and prior to the issue of a notice under section 148 of the said Act, declared before the Income-tax Officer the income which has escaped assessment due to his failure to make a return under section 139 of the said Act;

(iii)  the total income as declared in the said return by the assessee does not exceed the sum of Rs. 15,000; and

(iv)  the total income as assessed under section 143 of the said Act does not exceed the sum of Rs. 15,000.

2. This order shall come into force on the 1st day of September, 1972.

Order : F.No. 284/41/72-IT(INV), dated 30-8-1972.

Judicial Analysis

explained in - In Laxmichand Bhagaji  v. Deputy CIT [1994] 48 ITR 322 (Bom.), it was observed that instructions issued by CBDT vide Order F.No. 284/4/75-IT(Inv.), dated 16-10-1975 were applicable to cases of small additions only. They did not contemplate huge additions like the addition of Rs. 3,42,01,523 as in the instant case.

explained in - In Badhar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner [1992] 42 ITD 589 (Jp. - Trib.), it was observed that the above circular clearly shows that since the provisions of section 44AC were being understood in different ways, a necessity of clarifying the position was felt.

explained in - In G.V. Pydiraju v. ITO [1981] 20 CTR  (Trib.) 12 (Hyd.), the Tribunal relied on the above order and observed :

“5. Since the returns are held to have been filed by the assessee voluntarily and since the total income as finally assessed in the case of the assessee for the assessment years under appeal stands at Rs. 9,970, Rs. 11,260, Rs. 8,870 and Rs.11,850 respectively, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the circular-order F.No. 284/41/72-IT(Inv), dated 30-8-1972 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which has come into force on the first day of September, 1972 whereby the Board has directed that penalties imposable under sections 271(1)(a) and 273 are not to be initiated in the cases where no regular assessment under the Act has been made before the first day of September, 1972 in respect of any assessment year; the assessee has prior to the issue of a notice under sub-section (2) of section 139 or section 148 of the Act for the relevant assessment year, furnished, (of course before the 1st day of March, 1973) a return of his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which the assessee is assessable under the Act; and the total income as declared in the said return by the assessee does not exceed Rs. 15,000 as also that the total income as assessed under section 143 of the Act does not exceed the sum of Rs. 15,000.

6. On the facts of the assessee’s cases in appeal before us, all these prerequisites and conditions laid down in the above circular order are fulfilled, hence on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee’s cases in appeals before us, the said circular-order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes which was binding on the lower authorities would apply and accordingly penalty proceedings for the assessment years under appeal could not have been initiated. We hold accordingly.” (p. 13)

1293. Certain issues clarified concerning penalty imposed on registered firms and their partners under the section

CLARIFICATION 1

It was pointed out that the quantum of penalty for late filing of returns and/or for concealment of income or registered firms was worked out on the basis of the tax payable by the firm, as if it were not registered, and the partners were subjected to penalty in respect of the same amount and for the same default resulting in double penalty. It was suggested that some remedial measures may be considered.

The Committee has informed that it is only when both the firm and the partners file their returns beyond the stipulated time that both are penalised and this does not involve any element of double penalty for the same default. In such a situation there are two distinct defaults by two distinct taxable entities for which penalties have to be separately imposed.

As regards penalty under section 271(1)(c), the Committee was informed that if the income of the firms had been concealed, it was obviously liable to penalty. The partner also becomes liable to a penalty if, in his own return of income, he discloses his share of profit in the firm at a figure lower than his real share in the profits of the firm. However, in actual practice, where penalty is levied on a firm for concealment of income, penalty is not levied on the partner, if he has no concealed income other than that from his share in the firm.

It was next pointed out that penalties for late submission of returns were being levied on registered firms even in cases where the assessed income has not exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to pay by Rs. 1,500, treating the firm as an unregistered firm for levy of penalty. The Committee was informed that this matter had been considered and necessary instructions issued.

Source : Relevant extracts of Minutes of 10th Meeting of DTAC held on 23-12-1967.

CLARIFICATION 2

Interest is not charged on registered firm unless its income exceeds Rs. 25,000. As regards penalty, instructions have already been issued that in case of registered firm, penalty under section 271(1)(a) for non-compliance with the provision of section 139(1) should not be levied unless firm’s income exceeds Rs. 26,500. However, the firm is treated as unregistered under section 271(2) for purposes of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) if income exceeds Rs. 26,500.

Letter : F.No. 88/104/76-IT(INV), dated 1-1-19681.

Judicial analysis

explained in - This letter was explained in CIT v. Deepak Trading Co. [1994] 208 ITR 304 (Cal.) as follows:

“In this connection it may be mentioned that the Central Board of Direct Taxes in a circular instructed the Assessing Officer that section 271(1)(a) should not be invoked in the case of a registered firm unless its income as a registered firm exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax by Rs. 1,500. At that point of time when the circular was issued the non-taxable limit for a registered firm was Rs. 25,000. Thus the instruction in the circular in effect acknowledges that section 271(2) cannot be invoked unless the income of the registered firm exceeded Rs. 26,500. It by implication interprets that the effect of the fiction under section 271(2) is confined only to a case of a firm which has some assessable real tax payable by it and otherwise not. The circular was based on sub-section (3) of section 271. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) says that in no case penalty shall be imposed on an assessee for late filing of the return unless its total income exceeds the non-taxable limit by Rs. 1,500. The Board has indisputably understood that the effect of the fiction in sub-section (2) cannot flow over to other sub-sections. Sub-section (2) is applicable only if other sub-sections of section 271 with independent ambit creates a liability to penalty and otherwise not. Therefore, unless the registered firm has assessed tax as a registered firm it does not incur any liability to penalty and if there is no liability to penalty, the question of applying the fiction in sub-section (2) cannot arise. That sub-section steps in only at a later stage when the registered firm has actual tax payable and the tax assessed again is not infinitesimally small.” (p. 309)

1294. Whether the fact that, although period under section 139(2) had expired, time allowed for filing return under section 139(1) had not expired is not by itself a reasonable cause for not furnishing return

Failure to furnish the return in response to a notice issued under section 139(2) was due to any reasonable cause or not is a question of fact to be decided on the evidence produced by the assessee. The fact that although for the period of notice under section 139(2) had expired, the time allowed for furnishing the voluntary return under section 139(1) had not expired is not by itself a reasonable cause for not furnishing the return. Such a construction would imply that the notice under section 139(2) must be given only after the expiration of the period for furnishing the voluntary return under section 139(1). There are no words of limitation to that effect in sub-section (2).

Letter: F.No. 58/25/67-IT(INV), dated 11-4-1967.

1295. Whether advance tax paid/tax deducted at source have to be excluded for arriving at net amount of tax payable for the purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1)

1. The effect of Board’s earlier instructions is that for the purpose of calculating the penalty imposable for a default under section 271(1)(a), the tax deducted at source is to be deducted but the advance tax paid by the assessee is not to be deducted.

2. On a representation made by the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce, the matter has been reconsidered by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Law. Under section 271(1)(i) the penalty is to be 2 per cent of the tax, if any, payable by the assessee. Section 219 makes it clear that any sum, other than penalty or interest paid by or recovered from an assessee as advance tax in pursuance of Chapter XVII shall be treated as payment of tax in respect of the income of the period which would be the previous year for an assessment for the assessment year next following the financial year in which it was payable and credit therefore shall be given to the assessee in the regular assessment. The two sections read together make it perfectly clear that tax payable by an assessee as preferred to in section 271(1)(a) is the tax payable after giving credit for the advance tax paid by him as contemplated under section 219.

3. It has, therefore, been decided that the net amount of tax payable by the assessee for the purposes of section 271(1)(i) is to be arrived at by excluding the tax deducted at source as well as the advance tax actually paid by the assessee under sections 207 to 219.

Circular : No. 17(XLV-18)-D of 1965, printed in “Income-tax Circulars” published by Directorate of Inspection, 1968 edition.

1296. Consequences of filing false tax returns

“Filing False Tax Returns :

Do you know the consequences ?

Beware :

Filing of false tax returns is severely punishable under the Income-tax, Wealth-tax and Gift-tax Acts. It may cost you more than what you have concealed.

Under the Income-tax Act, a minimum penalty equal to the amount of the concealed income and a maximum penalty equal to twice that amount, is prescribed. Besides, there can also be prosecution and conviction—rigorous imprisonment for not less than six months which can be extended to two years.

Similarly, evasion of wealth-tax is also severely punishable under the Wealth-tax Act. A minimum penalty of an amount equal to the value of the asset so concealed or to the extent of understatement in the value of an asset or overstatement in the value of any debt, is prescribed. This penalty can be as high as twice this amount. In addition, there can be prosecution and conviction with rigorous imprisonment for not less than six months extendable to two years.

Furnishing inaccurate particulars of any gift is punishable with a sum not less than 20% but not more than one and a half times of the tax which would have been avoided if the return had been accepted as correct. Apart from this, you can be prosecuted. Conviction can mean simple imprisonment extendable to one year or with fine up to Rs. 1,000 or both.

 

REMEMBER                                 If the original return filed by you is

Evasion of Tax                              false why not file a revised return to

Is a Crime                                    avoid the consequences of discovery.

 

Circular Advertisement : Published by CBDT in the Statesman dated 5-1-1971.

[Source : F.C. Agarwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 408 (Gauhati), at pp. 420-421). Also Taiyabji Lukmanji v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 643 (Guj.)].

Judicial analysis

explained in - In the case of F.C. Agarwal (supra), the Court observed :

“Even assuming that the above advertisement in the Statesman, dated January 5, 1971, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is a circular or instruction or direction as contemplated under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 119 (as amended) and which may be binding on other tax authorities under section 119 as observed by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, the assessee in the instant case cannot be benefited by it. It is found that the new section 119 substituting the old section 119 was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1st April, 1971. The above advertisement or instruction was issued on January 5, 1971. The revised returns in the instant cases, however, were filed on March 20, 1968, for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the assessments were made on March 23, 1968, and the orders of penalty in the cases were passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on March 21, 1970. That being so, the revised returns in the instant cases were not filed in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on January 5, 1971, and the provisions of the substituted section 119 and more particularly the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 119 came into force only with effect from 1st April, 1971. . . .” (p. 424)

explained in - In the case of Taiyabji Lukmanji (supra), the Court observed :

“. . . . The grievance of the assessee is that effect ought to have been given to this circular of the Board before deciding the question of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We see no reason to doubt the statement made by the counsel for the assessee that a request for abstaining from imposing penalty in the context of the above instructions was in fact made. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have considered the question as regards the legality and propriety of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the light of the instructions given by the Board in the advertisement referred to above. Whether or not it amounted to promissory estoppel and created a legal right apart, the question was required to be examined from the standpoint of the credibility of the department. Would it not cause greater harm to the department itself if assessees who respond to its appeals and desire to cleanse themselves of the past sins are deterred from doing so ? In a way, in the long run, it might be counter productive to do so. All these questions cannot be elbowed aside. . . .” (p. 646)

1297. Direction to ITO/IAC for not initiating penalty proceedings under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) in respect of assessment year 1985-86 - Order under section 119(2)(a)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that the Income-tax Officer and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax shall not initiate any proceeding for imposition of a penalty on a person or impose penalty on him for an offence under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 or section 273 in respect of any assessment year up to and including assessment year 1985-86 in a case, if he is satisfied that such person—

(a)  has, prior to the detection by the Income-tax Officer, or as the case may be, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, of the concealment of particulars of income of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of such income, voluntarily and in good faith, made between the 15th day of November, 1985 and the 31st day of March, 1986, a full and true disclosure of such income;

(b)  has, on or before the 31st March, 1986, paid the tax on the income disclosed; and

  (c)  has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income.

2. This order shall come into force on the 17th day of February, 1986.

Notification: No. F.No. 281/8/86-IT(INV. III), dated 14-2-1986.

1298. Direction to ITO for not initiating penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1) in certain circumstances - Order under section 119(2)(a)

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that the ITO shall not initiate any proceedings for imposition of a penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the said Act in respect of any assessment year in a case where—

(a)  the return of income has been filed declaring total income at a positive figure but not exceeding the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax;

(b)  the consequent assessment is also finalised on total income which does not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax; and

  (c)  the return of income does not involve set off of losses carried forward.

2. This order shall come into force on the 1st day of November, 1975.

Order: F.No. 284/4/75-IT(INV), dated 16-10-1975.

Judicial analysis

explained in - The above order was explained in Laxmichand Bhagaji v. Dy. CIT [1994] 48 ITD 322 (Bom. - Trib.), as follows :

“42. It is seen that the instructions apply to those returns of income which were filed declaring a total income at a positive figure but not exceeding the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, and the finally assessed figure also does not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax. Firstly, it does not refer to cases where the returned income is a loss and does not refer to those cases where the finally assessed income is also a loss. The circumstances under which the CBDT’s order is applicable are such that the possible addition to the income cannot exceed the maximum amount chargeable to income-tax and, no tax is found due. Thus, these directions are applicable to cases of small additions only. They do not contemplate huge additions like the addition of Rs. 3,42,01,523, as in the present case.” (p. 333)

1299. When provisions of Explanation to sub-section (1), as it stood between 1-4-1964 and 31-3-1976, in cases of concealment of income, should be invoked - Principles regarding application thereof

CLARIFICATION 1

1. Some references have been received regarding the scope of the Explanation to section 271(1) in various types of cases, particularly where the margin of 20 per cent between the assessed and the returned income is exceeded as a result of application of estimated rates of profits.

2. The Explanation added to section 271(1) has, in effect, shifted the burden of proof regarding fraud or gross or wilful neglect from the Income-tax Officer to the assessee. In cases where it is clear that there is no fraud or gross or wilful neglect, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) should not be applied. Such cases will normally be of reasonableness or otherwise of gross profits or reasonableness of the yield of finished products in a manufacturing concern. Where the margin between the percentage shown by the assessee and the percentage applied by the Income-tax Officer is small and there can be honest difference of opinion about the reasonableness, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) should not be invoked. Where the margin between the percentage shown and applied is large, and there is reason to believe that the assessee is deliberately keeping books in a particular fashion with a view to pay lower tax, action under section 271(1)(c) should be taken. The burden of proof will always be on the assessee, and it will be for him to show that there is no fraud or gross or wilful neglect and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) do not apply to the facts of the case.

3. In paragraph 98 of Board’s Circular No. 20(LXXVI)-D, dated 7-7-1964, it had been said that the Explanation to section 271(1) should not be invoked in cases where income assessed is up to Rs. 6,000 and the profits have been estimated under the provisions of section 145 and the facts and circumstances do not indicate any gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. Further in the Board’s Circular No. 15-D, dated 19-6-1965 the application of the Explanation had been relaxed in cases, other than company cases and loss cases, where the income already assessed is Rs. 7,500 or less. In view of the large number of estimated cases in lower categories, the Explanation should not be invoked in cases where income assessed does not exceed Rs. 10,000 if the difference of over 20 per cent is due to estimate of profits under the provisions of section 145.

Circular : No. 28-D(XLV-22), dated 31-10-1966.

CLARIFICATION 2

1. In para 3 of the Board’s Circular No. 28-D(XLV-22), dated 31-10-1966 [Clarification 1] it was said that the Explanation to section 271(1) should not be invoked in cases where income assessed over 20 per cent is due to estimate of profits under the provisions of section 145. The Board has decided that the same principle should be applied to cash credits also or, in other words, the Explanation should not be invoked also in cases where income assessed does not exceed Rs. 10,000 if the difference of over 20 per cent is due to addition of cash credits.

2. The principles regarding application of the Explanation to section 271(1) are given in para 2 of the Board’s Circular dated 31-10-1966 mentioned above, para 3 is an exception to para 2 and the result is that in cases with income below Rs. 10,000, the Explanation should not be invoked if the addition is merely on account of estimate of profits or additions of cash credits.

Circular : No. 22-D(LXV-25), dated 16-12-1967.

Judicial analysis

explained in - In Shri Shive Dayal v. ITO [1984] Taxation 73(6) - 54, the Tribunal relied on the above two circulars. The Tribunal observed:

“3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused through the papers filed including the circulars relied upon. The circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the ITO. Regarding the circulars issued by the CBDT the Supreme Court in the cases of Navnit Lal C. Javeri  v. K.K. Sen [1965] (56 ITR 198) and Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT  [1971] (82 ITR 913) adopted the validity and binding nature of beneficient circulars and recognised the tax payer’s right to enforce them in his favour even in the court. The ITO should not have levied the penalty as the income finally assessed was only Rs. 8,640 i.e. well below Rs. 10,000. . . .” (p. 56)

1300. Denial of income-tax clearance certificate to contractors on levy of penalty for concealment and/or conviction - Guidelines therefor

CLARIFICATION 1

1. The Direct Taxes Enquiry Committee in para 2.224 of their final report recommended that Government patronage should be denied to contractors who are found to have evaded taxes and that they should be denied opportunity to earn profits from the Government contracts. The recommendation of the Committee is reproduced hereunder :

“2.224. We have elsewhere recommended that Government patronage should be denied to tax evaders. In conformity with that recommendation, we consider it would be necessary to ensure that contractors who are found to have evaded taxes are denied the opportunity to earn profit from Government contracts. We, therefore, recommend that contractors who have been penalised or convicted for concealment of income/wealth should not be awarded Government contracts for a period of three years. For this purpose, the form of tax clearance certificate applicable to contractors may be suitably amended to include information whether the contractor was penalised or convicted for concealment of income/wealth during the immediately preceding three years.”

2. The recommendation has been accepted by Government. In accordance with this decision, the following guidelines are laid down for the denial of income-tax clearance certificates to contractors on levy of penalty for concealment and/or conviction for the said offence :

1. Income-tax clearance certificates will not be granted to contractors in whose cases on or after April 1, 1975

(a)  a penalty is levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; or

(b)  where a conviction is ordered by a court for an offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or section 36(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; or

  (c)  where a conviction is ordered by a court for an offence under section 199 or section 200 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Where no appeal is filed by a contractor against the imposition of a penalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, referred to above, prohibition against the grant of an Income-tax Clearance Certificate will operate for a period of three years from the date of such order. In cases where the penalty is disputed in appeal by the contractor, the prohibition will operate for a period of three years from the date on which the penalty order is partially or wholly upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

3. In cases where a person is convicted for an offence, referred to above, the prohibition shall operate for a period of three years from the date of the order of conviction by the original court irrespective of the fact whether any appeal has been filed or not.

4. In cases where penal action is taken against the contractor under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and proceedings for conviction are also initiated for the offences referred to above, the prohibition will operate only for a period of three years reckoned from the date of the conviction order or the confirmation of the penalty order by the Tribunal referred to above, whichever is earlier.

3. With a view to ensuring the implementation of the above decision of the Government, the application form for Income-tax Clearance Certificate and the form of certificate to be recorded by the Income-tax Officer have been suitably modified. Application to be made on or after April 1, 1975 should be in the amended form enclosed herewith1. Necessary instructions may kindly be issued to all the officers working under your charge on the lines indicated above.

Circular: No. 162 [F.No. 221/21/73-IT(A-II), dated 24-3-1975 as amended by Circular No. 186 [F.No. 221/21/75-IT(A-II), dated 23-12-1975.

CLARIFICATION 2

1. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry’s Office Memorandum No. 221/21/73-IT (A-II), dated 24-3-1975 (circulated to all Ministries) with which the revised form of Income-tax Clearance Certificate was brought to their notice. This form was subsequently amended vide Circular No. 186 [F.No. 221/21/75-IT (A-II)], dated 23-12-1975, by introducing a new item No. V(c) therein. It is found that the existing proforma does not provide for certain essential information, e.g., income returned, details of partners of a firm and details of contract payments received in the last five years. In order, therefore, to make it more useful, the Board have decided to modify the proforma so as to incorporate the above information.

2. Besides, the existing certificates have also been simplified and certificates at B(i) and B(ii) have been completely dropped.

3. A copy of the revised proforma is enclosed [printed here as Annex]. Applications to be made on or after June 1, 1981 would be accepted only in the amended form.

4. All the Ministries are requested to bring this revised form of Income-tax Clearance Certificate for strict compliance to the notice of all attached and subordinate offices and Public Sector Undertakings associated with them. This form equally applies to Directorate General of Supplies & Disposal and Central Public Works Department and the concerned Departments are requested to see that these agencies do insist on the production of Income-tax Clearance Certificate in the amended form before grant of any contract, order, etc.

Letter : F. No. 221/34/76-IT(A-II), dated 7-4-1981.

ANNEX - REVISED PROFORMA OF INCOME-TAX CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE

   1. Name and style (of the company, firm, HUF or individual) in which the applicant is assessed or assessable to income-tax and address for the purpose of assessment.

   2. Name and address of all companies, firms or association of persons in which the applicant is substantially interested in his individual or fiduciary capacity.

       Note : For the purpose of para 2 above, the words “substantially interested” would have the same meaning as in Explanation to section 40A(2).

   3.  (a) The Income-tax Circle/Ward/District in which the applicant is assessed to income-tax and the permanent account number

       (b) In case of partnership firm :

 

Name of the partner

Address

Permanent Account No.

Income-tax circle/ward where assessed

1

2

3

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The following particulars are to be furnished concerning the income-tax assessments for the preceding five years :

 

Year

Total income

Tax demanded assessed

*Tax paid

‡Balance due

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Tax in columns 3 and 4 of para 4 include all items, viz., I.T., S.T., Surcharge, etc.

‡If any tax remains unpaid, reasons should be explained in an attached statement.

 

5.     (a) Whether any penalty for concealment has been imposed under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 on or after April 1, 1975 :

  (i)  If the answer is in affirmative, give the date, amount of penalty imposed and section under which imposed.

(ii)  Whether any appeal has been filed against the penalty order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax or before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. If so, the result thereof along with the date of the appellate order.

(b)  Whether convicted for an offence within the meaning of section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or under section 36(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 or under section 199/200 of the Indian Penal Code. If so, the date of the conviction order.

(c) Details of total contract amount received by the applicant, whose name is mentioned against (1), above, during the preceding five accounting years :

Date of previous year ending

Assessment year

Total contract amount received

The name of the authority or persons from whom amounts are received

1

2

3

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   6. In case there has been no income-tax assessment for any year, whether returns have been submitted under sections 139(1), 139(2) and 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or tax has been paid in advance under section 210(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and if so, the amount of income returned for each year and tax of each of the four years mentioned above and the Income-tax Circle/Ward/District concerned where such returns have been filed, give reasons for the same :

 

Assessment year

Income returned

Tax paid on self-assessment u/s 140A

Tax paid in advance u/s 210

Dates of payment

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   7. Whether any attachment or certificate proceedings are pending in respect of the arrears. The name and address of branch(es) if any.

I declare that the above information is correct and complete to the best of my information and belief.

....................................

                                                                                          Signature

Signature of the contractor .................

Registration No. .......................................

Address ........................................................

Date ...............................................................

I hereby certify that—

1. The information contained in this application has been verified from the assessment records and found correct.

2. The assessee has paid all tax demands due other than those which have been stayed by competent authority.

3. The assessee has been co-operating with the department in facilitating the completion of the pending assessments.

4.     (a) The period of three years has expired from the date of the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming or partially confirming the penalty levied on or after 1-4-1975 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act 1957.

or

In cases where no appeal has been filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed on or after 1-4-1975 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the period of three years has expired from the date of the imposition of the penalty.

(b) The period of three years has expired from the date of the order of conviction on or after 1-4-1975 under section 277 of the Income-tax Act or under section 36(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 or under section 199/200 of the Indian Penal Code.

Note : Delete whichever is inapplicable in the above certificate.

Date ..................                                                                                  ....................................................

Signature of the ITO

....................................................

Circle/Ward/District

SEAL