9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement of section 273A of the Act for waiver of penalty have not been met the application was liable to be rejected. - Held that: - The order passed by the Commissioner, therefore suffers from non-application of mind and a grave error. - Since there was no appeal available under the Act against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 273A of the, order of CIT quashed - - - - - Dated:- 17-3-2009 - PATNAIK A. K., SAPRE A. M. JJ JUDGMENT A. K. Patnaik C. J.- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Indore, rejecting the application of the petitioner for waiver of the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver of penalty have not been met the application was liable to be rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Satish Chandra Bagadia, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner has not filed any revised return for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 the petitioner had filed revised returns on the survey of the business premises of the petitioner on October 6, 1995, and the Commissioner of Income-tax has erroneously held that the petitioner had revised its return for the assessment year 1995-96 only after survey of special audit report and hence, the return was not voluntary and in good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied his mind and not recorded any finding as to the compli- ance or otherwise of the conditions imposed under section 273A of the Act and he had not assigned any reason whatsoever for refusing the relief sought for by the petitioner under section 273A while exercising his dis- cretion and held that the order passed by the Commissioner was not valid and was liable to be quashed. He submitted that considering the aforesaid authorities, this is a fit case in which the High Court exercises its discretion under article 226/227 of the Constitution should quash the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax for fresh con- sideration in accordance with the provisions of section 273A of the Act. 5. Mr. R. L. Jain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to accept the submission of Mr. Jain that we should not entertain this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India because a remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. Against the order of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act it is true the petitioner had remedy of appeal under section 246(1)(l) of the Act but he also had a remedy of an application under section 273A of the Act under which the Commissioner has a discretion whether on his own motion or otherwise to reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed on a person under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 273A of the Act, if he was satisfied that prior to the detection by the Assessing Officer, of the con- cealment of particulars of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
