High Court Of Bombay
Mohanlal V. Nakum vs. CIT & Anr.
Sections 271(1)(c), 273A(1)
Asst. Year 1985-86
M.B. Shah, C.J. & P.S. Patankar, J.
Writ Petn. No. 1318 of 1996
15th July, 1996
Arun P. Sathe, for the Petitioner : Dr. V. Balasubramanium with P.S. Jetley, for the Respondents
M.B. SHAH, C.J. :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is fixed for hearing.
The petition is filed challenging the other dt. 25th March, 1996, passed by the CIT under s. 273A (1) of the IT Act, 1961. By the impugned order, the CIT rejected the prayer of the petitioner to waive penalty as well as interest by holding that the petitioner has not made any satisfactory arrangement for the payment of unpaid amount.
5. In the present case, it is undisputed that on 31st July, 1989, the petitioner filed a revised return for the accounting period ending up to 31st March, 1985, by contending that he had previously filed the return for the accounting period 1985-86 (?) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has received a share of profit by sale of plot amounting to Rs. 3,60,000. At that time, he claimed exemption with regard to the payment of tax under s. 54F. The tax liability at that time, according to him, was Rs. 83,720 but he claimed exemption under s. 54F. Subsequently as he was not in a position to invest the said amount, he filed the revised return. Notice under s. 148 was issued to regularise the income and an order was passed assessing the capital gains of Rs. 2,99,000. It was also ordered to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act separately. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under s. 273A(1) of the IT Act for waiver of interest charges.
6. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that before detention of the income undisclosed, the petitioner himself has approached and pointed out to the ITO that the petitioner was not in a position to invest as provided under s. 54F and furnished particulars in respect of such income voluntarily and in good faith. Therefore, this is a fit case for waiving the penalty. In regard to interest, the order passed by the CIT is justified.
In this view of the matter, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the CIT with regard to penalty is set aside.
The respondents are directed to waive penalty only and to that extent the order dt. 25th March, 1996 (exhibit “C” to the petition), passed by the CIT is modified.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
[Citation : 255 ITR 649]