1997 (6) TMI 6 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Claim for benefit of section 273A rejected by Commissioner of Income-tax - Detection of incorrect particulars in returns filed by assessee - Conditions to invoke section 273A - Full and true disclosure of particulars before detection by Income-tax Officer - Compliance with section 273A(1)(b) - Entitlement to benefit of section 273A.

Analysis:
The High Court of HIMACHAL PRADESH delivered a judgment regarding two writ petitions where the petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the claim for the benefit of section 273A concerning assessment years 1976-77, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. The Income-tax Officer found discrepancies in the returns filed by the assessee, indicating a deliberate concealment of income. The assessee later filed revised returns admitting the incorrect particulars but claimed valid reasons for the discrepancies. The court noted the requirement under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act to disclose accurate particulars to avoid penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The assessee had filed an application before the Commissioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, seeking relief. However, the Commissioner, in his order, held that since incorrect particulars were detected before the revised returns were filed, the benefit of section 273A was not available to the assessee. The court emphasized the conditions set out in section 273A(1)(b), requiring the assessee to voluntarily and in good faith disclose full and true particulars before detection by the Income-tax Officer. Compliance with this condition is crucial to invoking the benefits of section 273A.

The court concluded that as the full and true disclosure of particulars occurred only after detection by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee did not meet the requirements of section 273A(1)(b). Therefore, the Commissioner's decision was upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the importance of meeting the statutory conditions for claiming benefits under the Income-tax Act.