N GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the subject matter involved in these writs and also the respondents herein are all one and the same, all these three writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petitions, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in C. No. 417/1/34 (1 to 6) of 1985-86 dated March 29, 1989 C. No. 417/2/34(1) of 1985-86, dated February 27, 1989, and C. No. 417/1/34/(1) of 1985-86 dated March 17, 1989, respectively and to quash the same in so far as it is against the petitioners herein and further to direct the first respondent to waive the balance interest of Rs. 5, 957.25, Rs. 10, 558 and Rs. 8, 880, respectively, levied under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1984 under section 273A of the Act in pursuance of the order of the first respondent in C. Numbers mentioned aboveIn support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and prayed that their writ petitions may be allowed as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, separate counter affidavits have been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this court to dismiss the said writ petitions for want of meritHeard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also those of learned senior counsel appearing for the Department. I have perused the contents of the affidavits and the counter affidavits together with all the relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their argumentsIn such circumstances, the only common question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow these writ petitions or notThe case of the petitioners herein is that all these petitioners herein are income-tax assessees holding permanent account numbers.

(2.) THEY have voluntarily filed their return of income for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1984-85 and paid the entire tax under the self-assessment under section 140A of the Act.

(3.) THEY state that the levy of interest being purely in the nature of compensation as laid down by the Supreme Court, the confirmation of the interest levied to the extent of 75 per cent. cannot be said to be in any way illegal or unjustified as claimed by the petitioner. It is also stated by the Department that the power granted to the Commissioner under section 273A of the Act is discretionary and hence on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Harbans Kaur's case, so long as reasons have been given by the Commissioner for exercising his discretion one way or the other, the courts should not interfere with such discretion.