9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and interest for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1988-89. Apparently, the application stands disposed off vide order dated 17.08.1992 and upon being challenged this Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for reconsideration. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner/ income tax assessee had for the concerned years filed late returns, in respect of the sole head of income enjoyed by her i.e. income from house property. A tabular statement disclosing the income on which the returns were to be filed and the dates on which they were actually filed has been disclosed in the revenue's counter affidavit and the same is reproduced below: - A. Year Due date Date of filing Delay in months 1980-81 30.06.1980 28.08.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard highlighted the decision of the Bombay High Court reported as Krishnan Gopi v. Bhaskaran, (1986) 161 ITR 631 (Bom.). It was next argued that the Commission's approach was erroneous in denying the relief inasmuch as a collective order under Section 273A was contemplated. It was submitted that this view is supported by several decisions including the judgments reported as Surendra Prakash v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1991) 187 ITR 456; Mohinder Singh v. CIT, (2012) 211 Taxman 196 (P&H); Sanjana Films v. CIT, (2001) 250 ITR 304 (AP) and Smt. Prakashkumari v. CIT, (2010) 326 ITR 82 (Bom.). 5. The revenue's counsel Mr. Madan relied upon the impugned order and argued that the Commissioner was right in denying the discretion sought for by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether satisfactory arrangements were then made or not would arise only in respect of 4 years i.e. assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. 7. The question of the writ petitioner or any assessee having to pay the amounts of penalty and interest in the first instance in order to qualify for relief under Section 273A cannot arise. If such a construction were to be given, the object of conferring discretion itself would be perhaps defeated. Therefore, once the statutory conditions laid down in the Explanation stood satisfied and the department accepted the returned income, (as in this case) the question of not making full and true disclosure could not have arisen at all. So viewed, the question of imposing any penalty under Section 271(1)(e) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the relief could be given one time for one year. That view is held to be incorrect in the said four decisions of the various High Courts, which this Court, with respect, adopts. 10. In view of the above conclusion, this Court holds that the writ petition has to succeed. It is accordingly held that the inclusion of any amount over and above the tax and interest payable, such as penalties determined under various provisions as well as the assumption that such amount is collectively payable is without the authority of law. The assessee has been able to demonstrate that payment of tax and interest had been made in respect of the years 1981-82 to 1984-85. The impugned order is set aside in totality in respect of these assessment years. The im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
