S.K. MAHAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26.9.1995 passed by the respondents praying that penal interest levied be waived under Section 139(B) and Sections 215/217 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the amount be refunded in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partner of the firm styled as M/S. S.K. Associates. The petitioner filed his return of income amounting to Rs. 1,02,230 for the assessment year 1988 -89 with the Assessing Officer, Palampur. The petitioner has disclosed that he had income of Rs. 1,02,230 including 30% of share of profit in the firm M/S. S.K. Associates of which he was a partner. He filed the return of income in individual capacity as well as on behalf of the firm for the year 1988 -89 simultaneously after the petitioner ascertained his share of income from the said firm. It was further alleged that at the time of filing the return by the petitioner, he had alleged that the tax payable on the basis of returns filed by the petitioner be deducted/adjusted out of returnable amounts to the said firm as excess tax stood paid the firm by way of TDS. It was further alleged that the amounts of tax assessed and penal interest levied amounting to Rs. 17,600 and Rs. 18,800 were accordingly adjusted from the refundable amounts of the firm and nothing remained payable as tax or penal interest by the petitioner. It was alleged that late filing of return by the petitioner does not constitute a ground for disentitling an assessee the benefit envisaged under Section 273 -A. It was alleged that the petitioner has paid all the tax and interest. Consequent upon order passed under the Act, his request for waiving the penal interest imposed did not find favour with the Income Tax Officer, Palampur who vide order dated 2.3.1994 rejected the same. It was alleged that the petitioner filed a petition before respondent No. 1 for waiver of the penal interest who rejected the plea of the petitioner vide his order dated 26.9.1995 on highly irrelevant inadmissible and extraneous conditions and as such, the said orders deserves to be set aside by exercising the writ jurisdiction by this Court.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.