Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Section 217 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Parshottam Nagindas And Ors. vs B.R. Adwalpalkar, Commissioner Of ... on 26 March, 1995
In Parshottam Nagindas & Ors. vs. B.R. Adwalpalkar (supra) 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 s. 273A was invoked could also in the opinion of the learned Judges, who decided the case suffice. With utmost respect, I find it difficult to fall in line. The provisions contained in s. 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 proper 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 ss. 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 legislature 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 provisions. The CIT 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.
Section 138 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax U.P., ... vs J.K. Hosiery Factory, Kanpur on 19 March, 1986
3. Mr. Rao, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that payment of the amount of tax due on the income disclosed by the assessee at the time of filing of the return was not one of the requirements stipulated by s. 273A nor could the non-payment of any such admitted tax amount be made a basis for rejecting the petitioner's request for waiver. He submitted that so long as the petitioner had paid the amount of tax pursuant to an order of assessment made under the Act, the requirement of payment of the tax amount must be deemed to have been satisfied no matter such payment was not made simultaneously with the filing of the return. There was, according to the learned counsel, a contradiction in the provisions of s. 273A(1)(c) and the requirement stipulated in the section, where under the assessee ought to have co-operated in the enquiry relating to assessment of his income and either paid or made satisfactory arrangement for the payment of tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under the Act. The argument was that whereas cl. (c) of s. 273A(1) required not only a voluntary disclosure made in good faith, but the deposit of the tax on the income so disclosed, the further requirement of the 1 assessee having paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax due in consequence of an order passed under the Act' implied that the payment of tax could be even in consequence of an assessment order made under the Act. The provision contained in s. 273A being a piece of beneficial legislation, argued the learned counsel, the same ought to be liberally construed and the benefit of any doubt or anomaly given to the taxpayer. Reliance was in support placed by Mr. Rao upon among others, Parshottam Nagindas & Ors. vs. B.R. Adwalpalkal CIT (1996) 131 CTR (Guj) 338: (1996) 218 ITR 392 (Guj), CIT vs. JK. Hosiery Factory (1986) 52 CTR (SC) 142 - (1986) 159 ITR 385 (SC) and CIT vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. (1988) 74 CTR (Mad) 127
(1989) 179 ITR 593 (Mad)
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 215 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Diamond Glass Agencies vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others on 18 November, 1996
4. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Seshachala called in aid a Single Bench decision of this Court in Diamond Glass Agencies vs. CIT & Ors. (W.P. Nos. 21705/1996 & connected matters) disposed of on 18th Nov., 1996, where Bhaktavatsalarn, J, has while dealing with a similar argument held, the payment of admitted tax amount as an essential requirement for the assessee to be able to invoke s. 273A. It was argued that the requirement of depositing the admitted tax amount was an essential requirement, which was in no way diluted let alone contradicted by any other provisions contained in s. 273A. The so-called contradiction and anomaly did not according to Mr. Seshachala exist nor was there any room for any interpretative process rendering an important statutory requirement ineffective.