9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er there is a case for total waiver of interest. The assessment year is 1986-87. In other words for the assessment year in question the return ought to have been filed on or before July 31, 1986, and it has been filed on March 10, 1989, within a little less than three years thereafter. Originally the return was filed admitting an income of Rs. 85,850. On discussion with the assessee's representatives it was rounded off to Rs. 7,06,970. The Income-tax Officer---the assessing authority---levied interest under section 139(8) of the Act from August 1, 1986, up to February 28, 1989, at Rs. 1,28,921. The other aspects are of no relevance in this petition. The aspect was considered by the appellate authority---Assistant Commissioner of Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was made available. It is also stated that disallowance of the amount of sales tax payment amounting to Rs. 4,64,875 under section 43B of the Act was also a factor which was ultimately considered by the first appellate authority. The petitioner submitted for waiver of interest, resorting to rule 117A(iv) and (v) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This petition came to be rejected by the order dated July 12, 1989 (exhibit P4), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Cannanore, stating that the reasons do not cover the aspects under rule 117A. If the provisions of rule 117A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, are seen it will have to be observed that the only provision that becomes of some relevance in the context of the factual matrix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner ought to have found that the delay was not due to any wilful or intentional omission. By the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it would be seen that it was urged that disallowance of Rs. 2,67,582 under section 43B of the Act resulted in a huge liability towards interest. It was also urged that there was a search under section 132 of the Act on the premises of the assessee on March 17, 1987, which could also be understood as contributing to the delay in filing the return. It was finally submitted that in the special circumstances of the case waiver ought to have been allowed in exercise of the powers under rule 117A of the Rules. The revisional authority h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling of the return. It is obvious that it is not that the return must be accompanied by a report of the auditor as required under section 44AB. In any case it is not that filing of the return is excusable on account of the non-receipt of the report of the auditor. It will be seen that the audit is compulsory for every person whose business is over Rs. 40 lakhs in any previous year. Reading the provision it need not detain the filing of return. At any rate when the return was due on July 31, 1986, till the premises were searched on March 17, 1987, for a period of 7 to 8 months there could not be an explanation, much less considered by the two authorities. Be that as it may, the second revisional authority has exercised jurisdiction allowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
