MOHINDER SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider his application dated December 28, 1987, moved under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), for waiver of the interest charged and the penalty leviable, relating to the assessment year 1987-88. The petitioner, who is a partner in the firm, M/s. United Construction Co. (Railways Division), filed returns of income for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88 on different dates prior to issuing of notice under section 139 or 148 of the Act making full and true disclosure of his income. As per the averments of the petitioner, he made payment of the tax assessed and the interest charged thereon in consequence of assessments relating to the above assessment years. The Assessing Officer, however, initiated proceedings under sections 271(1) (a) and 273 of the Act for late filing of the returns and also non-payment of advance tax, besides charging interest under sections 215/ 217 and 139(8) of the Act. The petitioner moved application under section 273A of the Act for waiver of the interest charged and the penalty leviable under sections 271(1)(a) and 273 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the other three partners of the firm made applications containing similar prayer which were considered by the respondent, but, vide order dated March 31, 1993, the respondent did not consider the claim of the petitioner for the assessment year 1987-88, notwithstanding the fact that he had furnished reply dated, January 28, 1993, to the respondent asserting that the provisions of section 273A of the Act no where provided that application for seeking relief under section 273A of the Act could be considered only for one assessment year if the returns were filed on different dates. The petitioner also made a prayer that his claim for the relief relating to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 may be considered as the petition made by him for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 had been withdrawn.

(2.) The respondent in a written statement submitted that the provisions of section 273A of the Act and the Explanation appended thereto has been correctly interpreted by it which provides that the assessee will be entitled to get relief under the aforesaid provisions only once, and since, in the present case, the dates of filing of the return were different, it could not be said that it was one disclosure.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.