9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns of his income for the aforesaid assessment years on October 23, 1972. On the same date, he filed an application before the Commissioner, Amritsar, respondent No. 1, under s. 271(4A) of the Act for waiving the minimum imposable penalty which could be imposed under s. 271(1)(a) read with s. 271(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that he had filed the returns in good faith without any notice having been issued to him under s. 139(2) or s. 147 read with s. 148 and that he had co-operated with the department fully. It was further stated that he had complied with the conditions provided in s. 271(4A) and, therefore, the penalty which was imposable for late filing of the returns be waived. Respondent No. 1 rejected the application, vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in clause (i) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1), the Commissioner may, in his discretion (i) reduce or waive the amount of minimum penalty imposable on a person under clause (i) of sub-section (1) for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return of total income which such person was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139, or (ii) ...... if he is satisfied that such person (a) in the case referred to in clause (i) of this sub-section has, prior to the issue of notice to him under sub-section (2) of section 139, voluntarily and in good faith, made full disclosure of his income; and in the case referred to in clause (ii) of this sub-section has, prior to the detection by the Income-tax Officer, of the concealme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure, it could have specifically said so in the Act. It is a settled proposition of law that the provisions of a taxing statute have to be construed strictly. If the person making an application under this section fulfils the aforesaid requirements the Commissioner has to decide the question of waiving the imposition of penalty on merits in each case. A similar question under the W.T. Act arose before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Ghulam Mohd. Sheikh v. CWT [1977] 109 ITR 395; [1977] Tax LR 945. The learned judge, after noticing the relevant sections, observed as follows (vide headnote of 1977 TLR 945): " Where a person files the return voluntarily under section 14(1) of the Act, it matters little whether he is filling the return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition challenging the order of the Commissioner. It was held that if the conditions in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 271(4A) of the Act were satisfied, the Commissioner could not refuse to reduce or waive the amount of minimum penalty imposable. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Commissioner has taken into consideration irrelevant matter, i.e., that the petitioner was assessed to tax for a number of years prior to the assessment year in question and by submitting the returns under s. 139(1) of the Act after the due date he cannot be considered to have made any disclosure in terms of s. 271(4A) of the Act, and, therefore, his order is liable to be quashed. He may, however, cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
