1998 (11) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of penalty under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Co-operation of the assessee with the Department in the assessment proceedings.
3. Validity of the order passed by the respondent rejecting the waiver of penalty and interest.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the respondent dated May 16, 1990, and direct consideration of the petitioner's case under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had initially shown a loss in the return for the assessment year 1985-86 but later offered the entire gift amount as taxable income in a revised return, paying the taxes in full. The petitioner sought waiver of the penalty of Rs. 1 crore imposed under section 271(1)(c) through an application under section 273A, citing genuine hardship and cooperation with the Department.

2. The respondent rejected the petitioner's request for waiver, stating that the revised return was filed after contradictory statements by donors were revealed, questioning the petitioner's intention and cooperation. However, the petitioner contended that the revised return was filed to cooperate with the Department and that the penalty imposed was excessive and arbitrary. The legal counsel for the petitioner argued that the conditions for waiver of penalty under section 273A were satisfied, emphasizing the petitioner's cooperation and genuine hardship due to the penalty amount.

3. The Court referred to precedents such as City Dry-Fish Co. v. CIT and judgments from various High Courts to establish that the disclosure of true income need not be made in the initial return but can be done in a revised return to demonstrate cooperation with the Department. The Court held that the Commissioner failed to consider the petitioner's submissions adequately and quashed the respondent's order, directing a fresh consideration of the petitioner's application under section 273A(4) within two months. The writ petition was allowed, but certain miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, the relevant legal provisions, and the Court's decision based on precedents and statutory provisions.