| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 562 1976 SLD 562 (1976) 105 ITR 230 |
Gujarat High Court
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS 294, 655 AND 1112 OF 1972 DECEMBER 18, 1973
B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND T.U. MEHTA, J.
K.C. Patel for the Petitioner. K.H. Kaji R.P. Bhatt, Bhaishankar Kanga and Girdharlal for the
Respondent.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS 294, 655 AND 1112 OF 1972 DECEMBER 18, 1973
B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND T.U. MEHTA, J.
K.C. Patel for the Petitioner. K.H. Kaji R.P. Bhatt, Bhaishankar Kanga and Girdharlal for the
Respondent.
Chhotalal & Co.
v.
Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood at relevant time) - Return of income - Interest for late filing of - Assessment year 1967-68 - Whether where assessee did not furnish his return within time mentioned in section 139(1) or within time given to him under section 139(2) but filed it before assessment was made within period of four years from end of assessment year under consideration, he was liable to penal interest under clause (iii) of proviso to section 139(1) - Held, yes - Whether since penal interest under sec 139(1) is by way of compensation to revenue, provision that registered firm should be treated as unregistered firm for calculation of penal interest could not be said to have violated objects of Act or resulted in double penalty - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, provisions of clause (iii) of proviso to section 139(1) could not be regarded as invalid on ground of double jeopardy - Held, yes FACTS On 4-9-1970, the partnership firm filed its return of income under section 139 for assessment year 1967-68 which was due before 30-6-1967. It did not make any application to the ITO for extension of time but under section 139(4) it filed the return and applied for extension of time before the assessment was made and it was done within the period of four years from the end of the assessment year to which the return related. The Income-tax Officer at the time of passing the assessment order charged interest under section 139 and also issued notice under section 274 read with section 271. The assessee-firm then preferred a revision application under section 264 to the Additional Commissioner for revising the order of the Income-tax Officer. He dismissed the application. On writ, it was contended by the assessee (1) since two conditions precedent in section 139(1), read with proviso, clause (iii) were not satisfied, charging of penal interest by the Income-tax Officer was without jurisdiction (2) there was a hostile discrimination by the legislature between assessees filing belated returns and assessees filing no returns at all, and, therefore, the provisions regarding levying of penal interest were violative of article 14 of the Constitution…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492