1989 (11) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement for the Commissioner to provide reasons in an order passed under Section 273A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The judgment examines the discretionary power vested in the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows for the reduction or waiver of penalties and interest under certain conditions. The court outlines that the Commissioner may exercise this discretion if the following conditions are met:
- The taxpayer has voluntarily and in good faith made a full and true disclosure of income before the issuance of a notice under Section 139(2) or Section 148.
- The taxpayer has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessment of income.
- The taxpayer has paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable.

The judgment emphasizes that the power conferred under Section 273A is quasi-judicial and must be exercised judiciously, reasonably, and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The court refers to several precedents, including:
- Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. CWT [1975]: The Allahabad High Court held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the section as the notice issued under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act was not served.
- Shakuntla Mehra v. CWT [1976]: The Delhi High Court held that if the conditions mentioned in Section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act are fulfilled, the Commissioner was bound to waive or reduce penalty.
- Seetha Mahalakshmi Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT [1981]: The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Commissioner must exercise discretion judiciously and not arbitrarily.

2. Requirement for the Commissioner to Provide Reasons in an Order Passed under Section 273A:
The court considers whether the Commissioner is bound to provide reasons for his decision under Section 273A. The judgment notes that while Sub-section (4) of Section 273A explicitly requires the recording of reasons, Sub-section (1) does not. However, the court holds that given the quasi-judicial nature of the Commissioner's function under Sub-section (1), the duty to provide reasons should be implied. This ensures transparency and accountability, preventing arbitrary or capricious decisions.

The court references several cases to support this view:
- Sardar Kartar Singh v. CWT [1982]: The Gauhati High Court held that the Commissioner must provide reasons to avoid arbitrary use of power.
- Mohammed Ali v. CWT [1983]: The Gauhati High Court quashed an order reducing penalty without reasons and directed the Commissioner to decide afresh.
- CIT v. Hindusthan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. [1989]: The Calcutta High Court held that a non-speaking order under Section 216 is invalid and must be quashed.

The court concludes that the impugned order by the Commissioner, which waived 50% of the penalty and interest without providing reasons, is invalid. The judgment states:
"No doubt, as contended by learned standing counsel for the Revenue, the Commissioner has applied his mind which is reflected in the reduction of penalty to 50 per cent., yet the order suffers from the vice of absence of reasons."

Conclusion:
The court quashes the impugned order and directs the Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh, providing appropriate reasons for any decision made. The writ petition is allowed without costs.