Tavangini Investment Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

The challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed u/s 273A of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') whereby application for waiving of interest and the penalties was dismissed by the Commissioner. The petitioner had originally filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 86,950. Then at the time of original assessment it was claimed that the petitioner had issued share capital to various shareholders to the extent of Rs. 24,50,000, the ITO asked the petitioner to file confirmation with regard to the genuineness and the creditworthiness of the shareholders to the share capital. The petitioner filed an application u/s 273A and also filed revised return voluntarily surrendering 25 per cent of the share capital to be taxed. In this way a sum of Rs. 6,12,500 was surrendered and ultimately assessment was framed on an income of Rs. 5,25,550.

Besides the tax of Rs. 4,56,013 the department also claimed from the petitioner interest u/s 139(8) of the Act amounting to Rs. 24,289 and a sum of Rs. 1,28,229 u/s 217 of the Act.

The petitioner u/s 273A was dismissed by the impugned order by the Commissioner on the short ground that all the ingredients were not complied with because the Commissioner had asked the petitioner to furnish a list of shareholders on whose account a sum of Rs. 6,12,500 stood surrendered. No such list was furnished and the Commissioner came to the conclusion that this amounted to the assessee not co-operating in the inquiry relating to the assessment year. A similar situation had arisen in another case being Kakkar Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. v. CIT [C.W. No. 3691 of 1991, dated 3-3-1992) by this Court. In that case also 25 per cent of the share capital had been surrendered. No list of the shareholders was submitted even though the same was asked for by the Commissioner. The Commissioner who was the same officer who has passed the impugned order in the present case, then came to the conclusion that there was no co-operation of the assessee and that decision of the Commissioner was upheld by this Court by dismissing the writ petition of Kakkar Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd.''s case (supra). Another case which was similar and was dismissed by this Court was in Zoom Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. v. CIT [C.W. No. 3677 of 1991).

For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order dated 3-3-1992 in the case of Kakkar Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. (supra) the present writ petition also fails because the facts are absolutely in part materia. Dismissed.