9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petitioner's prayer for waiver of interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. 2. Commissioner's rejection of the petitioner's prayer based on lack of voluntary disclosure and delayed filing of returns. 3. Interpretation of section 273A regarding the discretionary power of the Commissioner to waive interest. 4. Comparison with a decision from the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the voluntariness of filing revised returns. Issue 1: The petitioner sought waiver of interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. The Commissioner rejected this request, citing non-voluntary disclosure and delayed filing of returns. The returns for these years were filed after significant delays, ranging from 7 to 80 months after the due dates. The assessments were completed in 1995, and interest was levied due to discrepancies found during scrutiny for the assessment year 1990-91. Issue 2: The Commissioner's decision to deny the waiver was based on the lack of voluntary disclosure by the petitioner. The petitioner filed returns for the mentioned years only after being asked to explain discrepancies in the assessment year 1990-91. The Commissioner emphasized that the power to waive interest is discretionary and should be exercised when returns are filed voluntarily, in good faith, and before the issuance of a notice under section 139(2) of the Act. Issue 3: The judgment highlighted that the power vested in the Commissioner to waive interest under section 273A is meant to assist honest taxpayers who inadvertently delay filing returns. It should not be used as a shelter for those who knowingly withhold tax and file belated returns to avoid penal consequences. The discretion to waive interest must be exercised judiciously, considering the circumstances and the voluntariness of the disclosure. Issue 4: The petitioner's counsel referenced a decision from the Andhra Pradesh High Court to support the argument for interest waiver. However, the court disagreed with this view, stating that the submission of grossly belated returns after initiation of an inquiry does not qualify as voluntary disclosure. In this case, the belated filing of returns was seen as an attempt to avoid penal consequences rather than a genuine voluntary disclosure. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, in the judgment delivered by Judge R. Jayasimha Babu, dismissed the writ petition seeking waiver of interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. The decision emphasized the importance of voluntary disclosure, timely filing of returns, and the discretionary nature of the Commissioner's power to waive interest under section 273A. The judgment clarified that the provision is intended to assist honest taxpayers and should not be misused by individuals seeking to avoid penal consequences through belated filings.
|
