Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)
C.G. Krishna Prasad (Major) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 26 August, 1998 cites

Parshottam Nagindas And Ors. vs B.R. Adwalpalkar, Commissioner Of ... on 26 March, 1995

In Parshottam Nagindas v. B. R. Adwalpalkar [1996] 218 ITR 392 (Guj), heavy reliance whereupon was placed by Mr. Rao, the court has proceeded on the assumption that there is no provision requiring the assessee to make payment of the admitted tax amount. It was held that in the absence of any requirement of making the payment of the admitted tax, it was not possible to interpret the said provision to mean that such payment should have been made at the time of making the disclosure. A payment made any time before the power under Section 273A was invoked could also in the opinion of the learned judges, who decided the case would suffice. With utmost respect, I find it difficult to fall in line. The provisions contained in Section 273A do not in my opinion admit of the interpretation placed upon the same by the Gujarat High Court. The requirement of paying the amount of tax due on the amount disclosed in the return cannot be made infructuous by holding that such a payment could as well have been made any time before the power to waive is invoked by the assessee. The rationale behind the requirement is to encourage prompt payment of the amount of tax, which is according to the assessee's own showing due and recoverable from him. It only means that those who pay promptly can claim the benefit of waiver of interest also. An interpretation, according to which payment of even the admitted tax amount is not necessary till such time the power to reduce or waive the interest levied under Sections 139(8) and 217 is invoked will have the effect of negating the very purpose underlying the provision. Any such interpretation has, therefore, to be eschewed. Since the scheme underlying the provision does not envisage a benefit except in cases that fall within the four corners prescribed by it the beneficial nature of the legislation can be of no help. Payment of the admitted amount of tax along with the return being one of the requirements, non-compliance with the same would take the case of the assessee out of the purview of the said provision. The Commissioner of Income-tax was in that view perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. There is no merit in this petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any orders as to costs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next