Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (6) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n on March 27, 1987, though normally it should have been filed on July 31, 1984. There was a delay of 31 months in submitting the return. The first respondent completed the assessment of the petitioner-firm by order dated February 24, 1988. Exhibit P-1 is a copy of the assessment order as per which income was fixed at Rs. 4,72,750. However, by exhibit P-3 order exhibit P-1 order was rectified and the correct interest payable under section 139(8) of the Act was determined as Rs. 1,06,395 as against Rs. 37,086 demanded originally. The petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner under section 273A of the Act for waiver of interest levied under sections 139(8) and 217 for the assessment year 1984-85. That revision petition was dismissed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and (c), co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year. Explanation 1.--For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of his income or of the particulars relating thereto in any case where the excess of income assessed over the income returned is of such a nature as not to attract the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. " Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 273A which authorises the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. It could be seen from exhibit P-1 order of assessment that an amount of Rs. 18,000 was added on an estimated basis on the ground that the assessee was not keeping proper bills and vouchers. Thus, in view of this addition the officer could have levied penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. But it is pertinent to note that the officer had not levied any penalty as contemplated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act. That means, the excess income assessed over the income returned by the assessee is of such a nature as not to attract the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. The result is that the assessee shall be deemed to have made full .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue disclosure of his income. Because of the wide variation between the income disclosed and the income ultimately determined, it cannot be said that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, there was no full and true disclosure of the income by the assessee." On the other hand, standing counsel for the Income-tax Department relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Harbans Kaur v. CWT [1997] 224 ITR 418. That was a case where the Commissioner of Wealth tax indicated his own reasons for resorting to the power of reduction of penalty in preference to the granting of waiver of the full penalty. The conclusion of the court was where the conditions of section 18B are satisfied, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has discretion eith .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ultimate decision in this case. This has no doubt resulted in manifest injustice as against the assessee. As observed earlier, this is a case where the Commissioner has failed to take note of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 273A as it stood then. The Commissioner has also not taken note of the circumstances that the officer has not levied penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. In the aforesaid premise, I think this is a fit case to be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Exhibit P-5 order is, therefore, set aside. I direct the Commissioner to consider exhibit P-4 petition filed under section 273A of the Act on the me .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates