| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2961 2004 SLD 2961 (2004) 270 ITR 186 |
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2728 AND 2729 OF 1992 JANUARY 7, 2004
V.C. DAGA AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2728 AND 2729 OF 1992 JANUARY 7, 2004
V.C. DAGA AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Shrikrishna S. Bhagwat
v.
S.N. Soni, Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Reduction or waiver of - Assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88 - Whether while considering application under section 273A, non-payment of advance tax is an irrelevant consideration - Held, yes - Petitioner-assessee filed returns belatedly contending that after death of his father he was over-burdened with other obligations, as such he could not file returns within stipulated time - Assessing Officer levied penal interest on petitioner under sections 139(8) and 217 and initiated penalty proceedings for said defaults - Petitioner approached Commissioner requesting him to exercise discretion vested in him under section 273A to waive or reduce interest levied and penalties leviable which was rejected by Commissioner - Petitioner had voluntarily filed returns before issuance of any statutory notice by department - Full and true disclosures were made in good faith which were accepted by Assessing Officer as correct - Further, petitioner had co-operated with department and after filing returns paid amount of tax - Whether on facts petitioner had, unequivocally, established that he had complied with necessary requirements of section 273A and was, therefore, entitled to have discretionary relief exercised in his favour - Held, yes - Whether since Commissioner had relied on extraneous circumstances which were never pleaded by petitioner, impugned orders sufferred from non-application of mind on part of Commissioner which was liable to be quashed and set aside - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner had filed returns in the status of HUF as also in the status of individual belatedly. According to the petitioner he was overburdened with the work after the death of his father who was the karta of the HUF and as soon as the particulars were gathered, he filed returns on his own initiative without there being any statutory notice from the Income Tax Department. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on the basis of the returns and accepted the same as correct. However, while passing the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer levied penal interest under sections 139(8) and 217 and initiated penalty proceedings, for the said…
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