1990 (10) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner refusing to waive interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act for late filing of returns.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a registered partnership firm and its partners, filed a writ petition challenging the Commissioner of Income-tax's order refusing to waive interest levied under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act for late filing of returns. The returns for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 were filed after the due dates. The Income-tax Officer had waived interest for a specific period, but the waiver application was rejected in all other respects. The petitioners then approached the Commissioner under section 273A of the Act, providing an explanation for the delay due to a raid by sales tax authorities. The Commissioner rejected the explanation, stating that the books were returned earlier than claimed, and the delay was unexplained. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty for the same year based on different grounds not considered by the Commissioner, but this decision did not impact the interest levy under section 139(8).

The key issue in this case was the refusal of the Commissioner to waive interest under section 139(8) for late filing of returns. The petitioners' explanation for the delay was rejected by the Commissioner, who found discrepancies in the timeline of events provided by the petitioners. Despite the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty for the same year, it did not affect the interest levy under section 139(8). The Tribunal's decision was based on different grounds not considered by the Commissioner, and the timing of the Tribunal's order did not impact the Commissioner's decision.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the Commissioner's order refusing to waive interest under section 139(8) was dismissed by the High Court. The Court found that the Commissioner's decision was based on valid grounds, and the Tribunal's subsequent decision to delete the penalty did not impact the interest levy. The petitioners' explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient, and the Court upheld the Commissioner's decision.