ASSOCIATED TRADERS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an assessee to income -tax, challenges exhibit P -6 order of the Commissioner of Income -tax under Section 273A of the Income -tax Act, 1961. The grievances highlighted by the petitioner have been considered by the Commissioner in a well -reasoned but brief order. The return for the year 1984 -86 was filed on July 31, 1984. The assessee was directed to appear before the Income -tax Officer to answer certain queries by a letter of the Income -tax Officer dated August 25, 1986. There were earlier communications also from the Department. The crucial fact is that a revised return was filed only on August 28, 1986. No doubt, it offered an additional income of Rs. 1 lakh. The desire to avail of the new amnesty scheme was also expressed by the assessee. It is that request that has been ultimately decided upon by exhibit P -6 order.

(2.) BY that order, the Commissioner declined to interfere with the order of the officer.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that for the very same reason, there is a case for scrutiny by this court, in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The exercise of the powers of the Commissioner, a high functionary in the Income -tax Department, cannot be ordinarily interfered with unless there be a jurisdictional deficiency or other vitiating circumstances. If various factors are properly adverted to and cogently considered and rational reasons are available for the exercise of the discretion in the way it had been done, ordinarily, the court will not interfere. It cannot be said that the approach and attitude and the ultimate conclusion reached by the Commissioner are so arbitrary or opposed to well -settled legal principles of law. Whether, in similar cases, a different approach had been made, is not a matter for examination by this court in this case, particularly in the absence of assuring particulars in support of such a broad contention. Even if the departmental, authority has taken a wrong view in one case or the other, that is no justification for the spreading of such an infirm decision to other areas as well. Article, 14 does not inject that there should be equality in illegality.