S M ZIADDIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the respondent in C. No. 1431 (27) /1980-81 dt. 1st Aug., 1983, insofar as it refuses to grant waiver of interest and penalty under ss. 139(8), 217 and 273(b) in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 and consequently direct the respondent to reconsider the applications dt. 3rd May, 1980, and 26th June, 1983.

(2.) IT is unnecessary for me to go into the details having regard to the limited controversy before me. The fact remains that the petitioner, on 26th Nov., 1979, taking advantage of s. 273A of the IT Act, 1961, and disclosing the income for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1977-78, paid the tax as calculated by him for the six assessment years to which a reference will be made hereinafter separately. After remitting the tax, the petitioner, on 4th Dec., 1979, filed returns of income for the six assessment years and the ITO, Salem-7, on 10th April, 1980, passed the assessment orders relating to the said six years. The assessment year, the income returned and accepted, the tax paid and the tax actually assessed are as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_136_ITR203_1993Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side. I am unable to accept and sustain the objections on behalf of the petitioner to the order in question. Income-tax is an annual levy. Each "previous year" is a distinct unit of time for the purpose of assessment and the profits made or the liabilities or losses incurred before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing the liabilities in a particular previous year. So far as the facts of this case are concerned, it is not in controversy that, for certain assessment years, the tax due on the admitted income has not been remitted though in respect of one year there had been an excess remittance of tax on the admitted income. The petitioner would contend that it was merely an error of calculation and that, having regard to the fact that the remittance was on the same day, with reference to all the assessment years, the overall discharge of liability and remittance should be taken into account. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner himself apportioned the tax also with reference to the admitted income and he alone paid the tax as calculated by him for the six years separately and that merely because it was done on a single day in respect of all the assessment years simultaneously, the provisions of s. 273A(1)(iii)(c) of the Act cannot be said to have been duly complied with.