9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge against imposition of interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for belated filing of return and non-payment of advance tax. Dispute regarding waiver of interest by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Income-tax on petitions filed under rule 40(6) and rule 117A of the Income-tax Rules. Analysis: The petitioner filed the return for the assessment year 1983-84 based on share income disclosed by a firm, D. K. B. and Company, Quilon. Subsequently, the firm filed a revised return disclosing a higher income, leading to increased share income for the petitioner. The assessment by the Income-tax Officer resulted in levying interest under section 139(8) and section 215. The petitioner sought waiver of interest, which was partially granted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner but confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The challenge in the writ petition was against these orders. The petitioner argued that the enhanced demand and interest were due to the revised return filed by the firm after the petitioner had submitted the original return. The petitioner contended that the entire dues were remitted in instalments as directed and advance tax payments were made. It was also highlighted that the petitioner could not have anticipated the increased share income at the time of filing the return. The petitioner pointed out that the firm had been granted full interest waiver, unlike the petitioner. The court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioner were not adequately considered in the orders challenged. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's order was brief, merely restricting the interest under sections 139 and 215 without addressing the petitioner's arguments. The Commissioner of Income-tax also did not sufficiently address the petitioner's contentions, leading to the court's intervention. The court emphasized the importance of orders reflecting proper application of mind and containing reasons to support decisions. It was noted that the affidavit filed later could not rectify deficiencies in the original order. Citing legal precedent, the court held that the validity of an order must be judged based on the reasons provided in the order itself, not supplemented by subsequent explanations. Consequently, the court quashed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax pertaining to the assessment year 1983-84 and directed a reevaluation of the petitioner's revision petition with proper consideration of all relevant factors and an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. In conclusion, the court allowed the original petition, setting aside the challenged order and mandating a fresh review of the petitioner's case for the specified assessment year.
|
