9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t having received any notice from the Income-tax Department, Not only this, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,600 towards tax on the income so disclosed, i.e., Rs. 3,000 voluntarily and the remaining sum of Rs. 2,600. The Income-tax Officer processed the assessment of the petitioner after making all necessary enquiries and finalised the assessment at figure of Rs. 28,500, that is to say, almost accepted the income disclosed by the petitioner and made an addition to the extent of Rs. 725 only. Simultaneously, the Income-tax Officer served a notice of demand upon the assessee-petitioner under section 156 of the Act, requiring it to pay a sum of Rs. 3,861, i.e., (i) tax : Rs. 351 ; (ii) interest under section 215/ 217 : Rs. 1,890 ; (iii) interest under section 139(8) Rs. 1,620, making it a total of Rs. 3,861. Since no amount was chargeable under section 215/ 217 of the Act as no notice under section 210 of the Act had been issued, the Income-tax Officer rectified the same, vide his order dated March 12, 1979, and thus, cancelled the demand of Rs. 1,890. However, penal interest was levied and proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act for not filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no time he had been submitting the returns within the stipulated period. For instance, for the assessment year 1969-70, the return was filed on September 30, 1975, whereas the due date was September 30, 1969. Similarly, for the year 1970-71, the return was filed on January 15, 1976, for the year 1971-72 on March 15, 1976, for 1972-73 on March 3, 1977, and so on. This way, it cannot be said that the returns over the years were submitted voluntarily ; in fact, the returns were made under fear and compulsion. The respondents further averred that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 273A is discretionary and is available only if two basic conditions are satisfied, namely, that the filing of the return is voluntary and it is in good faith. Since the returns were not voluntary, respondent No. 1 rightly exercised his discretion under section 273A of the Act and so prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The crux of the dispute pertains to the determination of the ambit and scope of section 273A of the Act which, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder : "273A. Power to reduce or waive penalty, etc., in certain cases.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any penalty payable by the assessee under this Act or stay or compound any proceeding for the recovery of any such amount, if he is satisfied that (i) to do otherwise would cause genuine hardship to the assessee, having regard to the circumstances of the case ; and (ii) the assessee has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him : Provided that, where the amount of any penalty payable under this Act, or where such application relates to more than one penalty, the aggregate amount of such penalties exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, no order reducing or waiving the amount or compounding any proceeding for its recovery under this sub-section shall be made by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner except with the previous approval of the Board. (5) Every order made under this section shall be final and shall not be called into question by any court or any other authority. (6) The provisions of this section (as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989), shall apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the first d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declining the petition under section 273A of the Act is against the ambit of the section. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied upon the decisions rendered by this court in Dr. Paramjit Singh Grewal v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 549 and Harjas Rai v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 77, decisions of the Karnataka High Court in S. B. Naik Patil v. CWT [1981] 130 ITR 162 and K L. Sreenivasulu v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 834 (Kar) and a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Corporation v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 576. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the order passed by the Commissioner is perfectly valid, legal and just. The assessee had taxable income since 1964-65 and this way, the Department was aware of the fact that the petitioner had taxable income. Except for the verbal assertion of the petitioner that returns could not be file within time as the petitioner had a prolonged illness, no proof in this regard has been adduced by him. Even otherwise, the mala fides of his act are crystal clear as the returns during all these years, i.e., for more than six years, were submitted by him long after the due date which itself would s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
