1994 (6) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of income for the year 1968-69
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c)
3. Application for waiver of penalty under section 273A(4)
4. Rejection of the application for waiver of penalty

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessment of income for the year 1968-69, where the petitioner initially submitted a return of income but later voluntarily disclosed additional income from the sale of import licenses. The Income-tax Officer estimated the income at a higher amount than disclosed, leading to penalties being imposed under section 271(1)(c). The penalties were subsequently reduced on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The petitioner then applied for waiver of the penalty under section 273A(4), citing financial hardship and cooperation in the assessment proceedings. The application was rejected on the grounds that the penalty had already been paid, rendering section 273A(4) inapplicable.

The High Court, in its analysis, emphasized that the grounds for rejection based on the payment of penalty were invalid as the key considerations for relief under section 273A(4) are genuine hardship to the assessee and cooperation in the assessment process. The court highlighted that the objective criteria for the exercise of power under section 273A(4) are hardship and cooperation, not merely the payment of the penalty. Citing precedents, the court clarified that the focus should be on mitigating circumstances for waiver or reduction of the penalty.

Furthermore, the court interpreted the term "payable" in the context of section 273A, indicating that even if the penalty liability is discharged, the assessee may still be entitled to relief under the section. The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's application on irrelevant grounds necessitated quashing and setting aside the order. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the application on its merits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the Commissioner was instructed to review the application for penalty waiver afresh based on the proper legal considerations.