G. Venkateswaran vs Commissioner of Income Tax

T. Meenakumari, J.—This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in No. C.

No. 1543-(2-A) 1 of 1989-90 CENT-1, dated May 15, 1990, and quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the case of the

petitioner u/s 273A(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act in File No. 47-068-PV-3811 of Central Circle X(1),

Madras. The petitioner has filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 70,829 for the assessment year 1985-86. When the assessment proceedings were

taken by the Income Tax Officer, the officer held that the gifts received by the petitioner totalling to Rs. 1,27,48,325 cannot be accepted by the

Department as there were a number of contradictory statements by the donors. Further, the petitioner has filed a revised return offering the entire

gift totalling to Rs. 1,27,48,325 as taxable income. The petitioner had also paid the taxes in full. It has also been pointed out that the revised return

has been filed with a view to co-operate with the Department and settled the matter amicably. The petitioner is under the impression that the

penalty leviable would be waived if the taxes are paid. A penalty of Rs. 1 crore has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. An appeal

has been preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax which was pending at the time of proceedings. The petitioner applied to the

Commissioner of Income Tax for waiver of penalty on October 19, 1989, u/s 273A of the Income Tax Act. 1961, and he contended as follows :

The petitioner had produced a number of evidence in support of the gifts.

The petitioner had at the start made clear his intention to treat the amount as gifts both to the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-IV,

and the Deputy Director of Inspection (Investigation) and there was no attempt at concealment right from the beginning.

He withdrew the claim only after discussions with the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer.

The petitioner had clearly stated in his letter that he was making this revised return mainly with the view to co-operate with the Department.

The major portion of the sum treated as gift was utilised for paying Income Tax.

The petitioner had promptly paid the additional demand of Rs. 20,94,667 raised on completion of the assessment.

The petitioner has extended total co-operation to the Department in settling this matter amicably.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that all the conditions set out u/s 273A for waiver of penalty had been satisfied. There is no

property in the name of the assessee to pay off the huge arrears. His net wealth according to the wealth-tax return is of Rs. 40,70,757. It has been

also argued that if the amount of penalty was not waived, it would cause genuine hardship to the petitioner. The respondent has passed an order in

P. 1543 (2-A)1 of 1989-90 CENT-I, dated May 16, 1990, stating that the petitioner filed a revised return on November 30, 1987, only after

certain statements from the donors were made available to him and the petitioner was not correct in stating that the gifts in question were offered as

income to co-operate with the Department and it was only after the Department had proved that the contention of the assessee with regard to the

gifts was false, and the petitioner disclosed the amounts as income in the revised returns and the revised returns have been filed in two stages and

this could not be called as co-operating with the Department. In the impugned order it has been stated that the conditions for applicability of Sub-

sections (1) and (4) of Section 273A were not fulfilled. Thereby the request for waiver of penalty and interest is rejected by the respondent.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein has

filed a revised return offering the entire gift totalling to Rs. 1,27,48,325 as taxable income and the total tax has been paid with a view to co-operate

with the Depart- ment and the revised return has been filed with the genuine desire and the petitioner has no mala fide intention to conceal the

income. She has further argued that the respondent has not applied his mind to find out whether any prejudice is caused to the petitioner, if the

amount of penalty was not waived and whether it would cause genuine hardship to the petitioner herein. She has further argued that the penalty of

Rs. 1 crore levied is very excessive and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the order passed by the respondent herein is

legal and valid and as the petitioner has filed the revised return after the assessment is over, it shows that there was an intention on the part of the

petitioner to conceal the gifts. A reading of Section 273A(4) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows :

Without prejudice to the powers conferred on him by any other provision of this Act, the Commissioner may, on an application made in this behalf

by an assessee, and after recording his reasons for so doing, reduce or waive the amount 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 inquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him.

According to Sub-section (4) of Section 273A, if an application is made by an assessee, the Commissioner has got the power to reduce or waive

the amount of penalty payable by the assessee if he is satisfied that genuine hardship is caused to the assessee and the assessee has co-operated in

the inquiry relating to the assessment and any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him. The fact remains in this case that the

assessee has filed a revised return showing the gift, totalling to Rs. 1,27,48,325 as taxable income and he has paid the tax in full. The case of the

petitioner is that the tax has been paid with a view to co-operate with the Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a

judgment reported in City Dry-fish Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, , wherein the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High

Court has held that the concealment of income in the original return is not relevant and the assessing authority has to see whether the assessee has

co-operated with the Department. The Bench has further held as follows (headnote):

Two conditions must be satisfied for exercise of the power of the Commissioner of Income Tax to reduce or waive penalty u/s 273A(4) of the

Income Tax Act, 1951. The first condition is that non-exercise of the power would cause genuine hardship to the assessee having regard to the

circumstances of the case, while the second condition is that the assessee should have co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment or any

proceedings for the recovery of any amount due from him. The power could be exercised by the Commissioner irrespective of the assessee

pursuing the remedies of appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal with or without success. Filing of a return is an act of the

assessee and enquiry into the correctness of the return is made u/s 142 of the Act. The question of disclosure of the correct income in the return is

relevant for the purpose of levying penalty and not for the purpose of waiver or reduction of penalty. The expression ''full and true disclosure'' is

not incorporated in Sub-section (4) of Section 273A of the Act. The disclosure of true income need not be made in the initial return, but can be

made in the revised return and on that ground, it cannot be said that the assessee has not co-operated in the enquiry relating to the assessment.

In the above judgment a number of judgments have been relied upon :

(1) Dr. Paramjit Singh Grewal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, ;

(2) Mahavir Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-V, Ahmedabad, ; and

(3) Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, .

It has been held in Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , a judgment which arose from the Allahabad High

Court that the disclosure of true and full income need not be made in the initial stage, but can be made in the revised return and it cannot be said

that the assessee did not co-operate in the enquiry relating to assessment.

In Mahalakshmi Rice Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-I, , the Karnataka High Court has held that once the disclosure made

under the 1976 Act was rejected as barred by time, the Commissioner was not justified in making use of the material therein to deny the co-

operation extended to the Income Tax Officer in completing the assessment after the revised returns were filed, that there was no evidence to show

that the assessee did not cooperate with the Income Tax Officer in completing the assessment because the assessee did not resort to litigation and

obstruction or evasive tactics in concluding the assessment. It is further held that the expression ""cooperation"" in any enquiry relating to the

assessment u/s 273A should be held to mean that the assessee did not resort to litigation, obstruction or evasive tactics in concluding the

assessment. In the above case, the order of the Commissioner was quashed and he was directed to pass fresh orders on the application of the

assessee u/s 273A for the relevant assessment years.

Relying upon the above judgment, it could be said that in the present case also, there was no evidence to show that the assessee did not co-

operate with the Income Tax Officer in completing the assessment either by resorting to litigation and obstruction or by evasive tactics in

completing the assessment. It also has to be seen that the Commissioner has brushed aside the various relevant and germane submissions put

forward by the petitioner-assessee in support of his plea that non-exercise of power u/s 273A(4) of the Act would result in genuine hardship to the

assessee. In view of the above, it could be said that the Commissioner has failed to exercise his power u/s 273A(4) of the Act. Relying upon the

above judgments, the impugned order passed by the respondent is quashed and a direction shall however be issued to the respondent to dispose

of the application of the petitioner filed u/s 273A(4) of the Act, afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations, made, within

two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. But, W.M.P. Nos. 19222 of 1994, 7423 of 1995, 16433 and 16434 of 1995 are

dismissed.