1997 (6) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Delay In Filing Return, Full And True Disclosure, High Court, Income Returned, Petition Against Order, Powers Of Commissioner, Reduction Or Waiver, Waiver Of Interest, Waiver Or Reduction, Writ Petition

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal to waive interest levied under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involved a writ petition concerning the refusal to waive interest levied under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The petitioner filed a return with a delay of 31 months, leading to the assessment of income at Rs. 4,72,750. The petitioner sought waiver of interest, but the Commissioner dismissed the petition, leading to subsequent petitions and rejections, primarily challenging the exhibit P-5 order passed by the Commissioner under section 273A of the Act. The petitioner contended that the disclosure of income was made voluntarily and in good faith before the notice under section 148 was issued, as required by the Act.

The judgment examined the provisions of section 273A of the Income-tax Act, which allows the Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under specific circumstances. The petitioner relied on clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 273A, emphasizing the requirement of full and true disclosure of income before the issuance of notices. The judgment highlighted the importance of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 273A, which deems full and true disclosure in cases where excess income assessed does not attract penalty provisions. The judgment noted that despite an addition to income due to lack of proper documentation, no penalty was levied under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271, indicating a valid disclosure by the assessee.

The judgment referenced a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court to support the petitioner's argument regarding mitigating circumstances for waiving penalties. Additionally, the judgment contrasted the case with a Supreme Court decision concerning the Commissioner's discretion in reducing penalties, emphasizing the need for justifiable reasons. The judgment reiterated the authority of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene in cases of manifest injustice resulting from discretionary orders by statutory authorities.

Ultimately, the judgment set aside the exhibit P-5 order and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner's petition under section 273A, emphasizing the need to consider the relevant provisions and circumstances overlooked in the initial decision. The judgment concluded that the Commissioner's failure to address crucial aspects resulted in manifest injustice against the assessee, warranting a fresh disposal of the case after affording a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.