MOHAMMAD UMAR AND CO Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner firm which was engaged during 1970-71 in the execution of contract works was also doing transport business and filed its return for the said year on January 27, 1974, and was assessed on an income of Rs. 61,940. THE assessing authority, Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Jammu, found that the assessee failed to submit the return and true accounts within the time prescribed and, therefore, allowing extension of about four months imposed penalty for late filing of the return to the tune of Rs. 5,225 by his order under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter called "the Act"). After the said order, on an application of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar, by his order dated October 9, 1975, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay and condoning the penalty under Section 271 (4A) of the Act THE petitioner, being aggrieved against the said order, filed this petition.

(2.) IN short, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly based on the ground that the learned Commissioner of INcome-tax failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in. him on a wrong interpretation of law and thus the order is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the order has been passed under the impression that the provisions of Section 271 (4A) of the Act are attracted for new assessees only and not for those who are old assessees. This is reflected by the order itself and, therefore, it is submitted that the order deserves to be quashed in this petition.

(3.) GIVING my anxious thought to the rival arguments advanced and considering the provisions of Section 271 (4A) of the Act, when I read the authority cited of Ghulam Mohd. Sheikh [1977] 109 ITR 395 (J and K), I find that the provisions of Section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 271(4A) of the Act. I do not want to burden the order by detailing the above two provisions as the ratio of the said authority as to the applicability of the provision equally applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Commissioner concentrated in his order only on the point that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of condonation of penalty simply on the ground that he is an old assessee. The following words in the order impugned passed on October 9, 1975, are clearly indicative of the approach of the learned Commissioner :