PARAMJIT SINGH GREWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY, the case of the petitioner is that he is an assessee under the I. T. Act and was being assessed by the ITO, District II (V), Amritsar, respondent No. 2. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the due dates for filing the returns under Section 139 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), were September 30, 1970, and September 30, 1971, respectively. He, prior to the issue of notices under Section 139 (2) of the Act, voluntarily filed the returns of his income for the aforesaid assessment years on October 23, 1972. On the same date, he filed an application before the Commissioner, Amritsar, respondent No. 1, under Section 271 (4a) of the Act for waiving the minimum imposable penalty which could be imposed under Section 271 (1) (a) read with Section 271 (1) (a) (i) of the Act on the ground that he had filed the returns in good faith without any notice having been issued to him under Section 139 (2) or Section 147 read with Section 148 and that he had co-operated with the department fully. It was further stated that he had complied with the conditions provided in Section 271 (4a) and, therefore, the penalty which was imposable for late filing of the returns be waived.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 rejected the application, vide order dated June 2, 1975, on the ground that the petitioner had been assessed to tax for a number of years prior to the assessment years in question and by submitting the returns under Section 139 (1) after the due date, the assessee could not be considered to have made any disclosure in terms of Section 271 (4a) of the Act. The provision was applicable only to a case where the income would have escaped assessment but for a disclosure made by the assessee. It was further added that the filing of the returns was, therefore, not an act of disclosure, much less a voluntary disclosure. The order has been challenged through this writ petition on the ground that respondent No. 1 has taken irrelevant matters into consideration while deciding the application under Section 271 (4a) of the Act.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has taken into consideration irrelevant matter, namely, that the petitioner had been an assessee for a number of years prior to the assessment years in question and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 271 (4a) of the Act. He strenuously argues that the aforesaid section does not contemplate that if a person is a prior assessee then he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 271 (4a) of the Act.