9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellant-assessee. Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Standing Counsel for the respondent-Revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider his application dated 28.12.1987, moved under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), for waiver of the interest charged and the penalty leviable, relating to the assessment year 1987-88. The petitioner, who is a partner in the firm M/s. United Construction Company (Railways Division), filed returns of income for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88 on different dates prior to issuing of notice under Section 139 or 148 of the Act making f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t provisions of Section 273A of the Act and the explanation appended thereto has been correctly interpreted by it which provides that the assessee will be entitled to get relief under the aforesaid provisions only once, and since in the present case the dates of filing of the return were different, it could not be said that it was one disclosure. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to sub-section (3) of Section 273-A of the Act and placed reliance on a decision of the Karnatka High Court in C. Subaramani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (1993) 202 ITR 347, to submit that the order refusing to consider petitioner s application for asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A may pertain to one or more than one assessment year. But, once that power is exercised, the assessee will not be entitled to any relief in relation to another assessment order after making such an order. In the decision in Ram Sarandas Har Swaroop Mal v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 503 (All), it is held that a common application filed for three different years was disposed of by a common order and in that order, the Commissioner confined the relief to only one year and, in respect of other two years, he refused to grant the relief. The Allahabad High Court, explaining the scope of section 273A(3), stated that when the conditions are fulfilled, it is certainly open to the Commissioner to waive or reduce the interest as the case may be. But, once th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
