SANNIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises under the Income-Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, The petitioner owned one lorry since the year 1964. Prior to the assessment year 1965-66, he was not an assessed under the Act. He did not file his return of income for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 as required under the Act. On 4-11-1969 he voluntarily submitted his returns for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70. On the said returns, the assessing authority (respondent 2) completed the assessment and passed assessment order on20-ll-1969. On the same day, the 2nd respondent issued notices to the petitioner under sub-sec. (1) of S.27I of the Act to shdw cause why penalty should not be imposed on him On receipt of the sai'd notices, the petitioner made an application dt.2-3-1970 before the Commissioner of Income-Tax in Mysore (respondent 1) for waiving the penalty under S.271(4A) of the Act. In the said application the petitioner stated that he has fully satisfied the requisite conditions for exercise of the discretion of the Commissioner for reduction or waiver of the aomunt of minimum penalty imposable on the petitioner. It was expressly slated that he had filed his returns of income for the assessment years 1SG5-66 to 1969-70 voluntarily before notices under S.139(2) were issued, that he had co-operated fully in the enquiry relating to the assessment and that he has already paid the tax assessed. The Commissioner of Income-tax by his order dt.27-4-1970 rejected the said applicaiton on the ground that the conditions for invoking his discretion-under S.271(4A) have not been satisfied. The said order reads thus : " The petition dt.2-3-1970 for waiver of penalty imposable under 3.271(1) (a) for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69 is rejected, as the conditions for invoking S.271 (1A) are not satisfied in this case."

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the said order under Art.226 of the Constitution. The ground urged by Sri S. P. Bhat for the petitioner was that the order of the Commissioner is not a speaking order. The 1st respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit, but a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri A. R. Balakrishna Tilakan, Income-Tax Officer (OSD), Bangalore, in which the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's application have been set out.

(3.) That the order of the 1st respondent impugned is not a speaking order has not been disputed and cannot be disputed.. But it was urged by Sri S. R. Rajashekara Murthy fcr the Department that if we peruse the counter-affidavit filed by the Income-Tax Officer, the order impugned can be supported and therefore we should not interfere in the instant case. Sub-sec. (4A) of S.271 so far as it is relevant reads thus :