1971 (7) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

If the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) and the provisions of sub-section (4)(a) of section 139 are perused, it is clear that sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 applies not only where the assessee requests for extension of time for furnishing his return of income but also where the date fixed originally under section 139(2) falls beyond the date specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139. In that view, the levy of interest in the impugned assessment orders was perfectly legal and the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner has to fail.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under the Income-tax Act for multiple years, levy of interest, waiver of penalty, opportunity of being heard before rejecting application, interpretation of provisions regarding extension of time for filing returns, applicability of interest in cases of late submission without extension request, judicial review of Commissioner's decision under section 271(4A).

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a batch of seven writ petitions filed by The Indian Telephone Industries Co-operative Society Ltd. challenging assessments under the Income-tax Act for the years 1963-64 to 1969-70. The petitioner failed to file returns by the due date but submitted them within the dates specified in notices issued under sections 139(2) and 148. The Income-tax Officer levied tax, interest, and directed penalty notices for late submission and non-filing of advance tax estimates.

The main contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel were regarding the levy of interest under section 139 and the rejection of the penalty waiver application without a hearing. The court rejected both contentions. It clarified that interest is chargeable if the return is filed beyond the date under section 139(1) but within the date specified in notices under sections 139(2) or 148. The judgment emphasized the provisions allowing the Income-tax Officer to extend the filing date upon application and the consequences of filing late without an extension.

The court referenced a previous decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to distinguish cases where interest is not applicable if the assessee does not request an extension. However, it disagreed with the broader interpretation and upheld the legality of interest levied in the present case. Additionally, the court ruled that the Commissioner was not obligated to provide an oral hearing under section 271(4A) as the power conferred is not quasi-judicial. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to challenge penalties through the appeal process.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the contentions raised lacked merit. No costs were awarded in the case. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions governing the extension of time for filing returns, the applicability of interest in different scenarios, and the procedural requirements for penalty waivers and appeals under the Income-tax Act.