9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the order under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passes the test of a speaking order. 2. Whether the relief regarding waiver of penalty and interest can be granted only once under section 273A(3) of the Act. 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax should pass the same order with regard to all matters covered by a single application. 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of waiver when one single application is filed with regard to several years. 5. Whether the assessee has deposited the tax as required under section 273 of the Act. Analysis: The judgment addressed the issue of whether the order under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was a speaking order. The court held that the order in question, annexure P-4, did not meet the criteria of a speaking order as it merely scored out alternatives on a printed form. Citing a decision by the Karnataka High Court, the court emphasized the importance of a reasoned order and set aside the order in question on this ground. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Income-tax to pass a speaking order, considering the benefit of waiver when a single application is filed for multiple years, and taking into account relevant amendments. Regarding the relief of waiver of penalty and interest, the court considered whether it could be granted only once under section 273A(3) of the Act. The court referred to the decision by the Karnataka High Court, which highlighted that while the provision does not bar applications for different assessment years, relief can only be granted once. The court directed the Commissioner to examine whether the petitioners were entitled to waiver benefits for multiple years based on a single application. The judgment also discussed the Commissioner of Income-tax's obligation to pass consistent orders for all matters covered by a single application. The court noted the argument that when one application is submitted, the Commissioner should pass similar orders for all relevant matters. The court directed the Commissioner to consider this aspect and ensure consistency in the orders issued. Additionally, the judgment addressed the issue of tax deposit by the assessee as required under section 273 of the Act. The court observed that no interim order was passed, allowing the Revenue to recover the tax due from the assessee. The Commissioner was granted the authority to take necessary actions if tax deposit was a condition precedent, and a speaking order was mandated to be passed within six months from the date of the judgment.
|
