Shrinath Tools Centre vs Commissioner of Income Tax

J.N. Bhatt, J.—In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the main relief which is sought by the petitioner, which is a partnership firm, dealing in the business of welding accessories, etc., pertains to the waiver of charging of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 to 1986-87. The impugned order of the respondent No. 1 Commissioner dated 24-2-1992 u/s 273A(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act''), indicates that the interest charged under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act for the assessment year 1980-81 is fully waived in purported exercise of powers u/s 273A, whereas, the assessee-firm had claimed by the letter dated 5-1-1989 for waiver of penalty imposable u/s 271(1)(a) and interest charged u/s 139(8) and section 217 for the assessment years from 1980-81 to 1986-87. Unfortunately, the order does not deal with the claim in respect of remaining six assessment years. It is also not clear from the impugned order that the assessee-firm is ineligible for the claim for remaining six assessment years. Whereas, against that, the petitioner has categorically averred in the petition that requisite conditions for entitlement parameters are fulfilled even in respect of remaining six years and, therefore, waiver of penalty and interest charged ought to have been given for the remaining six assessment years. Such averments made in the petition have not been controverted by filing affidavit-in-reply and again, claim for remaining six assessment years made by the assessee-firm in respect of interest is less than Rs. 6,000 and in respect of penalty the claim is less than Rs. 16,000.

Although ordinarily, the Court directs the authority concerned to reconsider the claim or case of the party upon being satisfied (by the Court) for reconsideration and it is for the authority to reconsider and pass appropriate orders or directions, (however,) there are peculiar facts and special circumstances, in addition to the pettiness of amount involved, which commands departure from the normal course and, therefore, it would be quite justifiable, expedient and necessary in the circumstances, without forming or being a precedent for future, to pass a direction to the respondent No. 1 in modification of the impugned order for remaining six assessment years since material requisite conditions, stated to have been satisfied, have remained uncontroverted. The respondent No. 1 is, therefore, directed to reconsider and pass orders in the light of the aforesaid observations, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court so as to see that dispute which is at a micro level and involving petty amount, is ceremoniously ended. With these observations, the petition is partly allowed without any order as to costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly.