Writ Petition No. 152 of 1988. Case: New Light Electric Co. and another Vs G.K. Mishra, Cit, and another. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 152 of 1988 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V.H. Patil, Adv.For Respondents: Mrs. Manjula Singh and G.S. Jetley, Advs. |
| Judges | T.D. Sugla, J. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 40, 139(8), 143(3), 271(1) and 273A; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | August 06, 1990 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
T.D. Sugla, J.
-
By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated October 20, 1987, passed by the Commissioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
The petitioners were assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1981-82 under section 143(3). Since the returns of income were filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act, the Income-tax Officer had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(a) and charged interest under section 139(8) for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82. The proceedings for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 were pending. At that stage, the petitioners made an application dated January 29, 1985, to the Commissioner of Income-tax for reduction and/or waiver of interest under section 139(8) and penalty under section 271(1)(a) levied for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82. A request was made for the dropping of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) and waiver or reduction of interest chargeable under section 139(8) or 217 for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79. Subsequently, the petitioners filed revised returns for these very years under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in or about the last quarter of 1986. The only addition made to the income in the revised returns was that of interest paid to Pioneer Trading Co. A proprietary concern of Chandanmal Seshmal Doshi, one of the partners of the petitioner firm. As per the uncontroverted averments in the petition, the particulars of payment of interest to that concern were furnished during the original assessment proceedings with a note that the said amount of interest was not required to be added under section 40(b). The revised returns, it was stated, were filed under the advice of their tax adviser that the interest so paid should have been added back under section 40(b). Reassessments were completed accepting the revised returns The fact that the petitioners had filed revised returns under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, according to the Commissioner, was itself proof of the fact that the petitioners had not voluntarily and in good faith made a full and true disclosure of their income in the original proceedings. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the provisions of section 273A were not applicable in this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial