1995 (7) TMI 42 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 273A of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1978-79 up to 1982-83.
2. Interpretation of whether returns were filed before notice under section 148 was issued.
3. Compliance with the conditions under section 273A of the Income-tax Act.
4. Finding of fact regarding the completeness of returns for the last three assessment years.

Analysis:
The High Court of BOMBAY delivered a judgment regarding the rejection of the petitioners' application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 273A of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1978-79 up to 1982-83. The petitioners filed returns of income for eight years, disclosing their true income and paying self-assessment tax. However, the returns for the first five years were filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the application for waiver, stating that the returns were treated as non est in the eye of law due to being filed beyond the time limit. The petitioners contended that they had filed returns before the notice under section 148 was issued, complying with all conditions under section 273A. The court analyzed the timeline of events and concluded that the petitioners' letters to the Income-tax Officer indicated that the returns were filed after receiving the notice under section 148, not before. This failure to meet the pre-conditions under section 273A led to the rejection of the waiver application.

Moreover, the court highlighted that the Commissioner of Income-tax had found only the returns for the last three assessment years to be true and complete, which was considered a finding of fact. As such, the court declined to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that the petitioners' attempt to have the returns treated as compliant with section 148 after being time-barred did not fulfill the requirements of section 273A. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs. The court's decision was based on the failure to establish compliance with the statutory provisions, specifically regarding the timing of the returns in relation to the notice under section 148, leading to the rejection of the waiver application.