9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax: The common question in these cases is whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The applications were moved post a search and seizure operation conducted by authorized officers of the Income-tax Department at the residential premises of an individual on January 12, 1988. Facts of the Case: - The petitioners, including Smt. Ramjanki Devi, Nathulal Jain, and Mahaveer Kumar Jain, filed returns of income for the assessment year 1987-88, disclosing additional income and subsequently filed applications under section 273A of the Act for waiver of penalties and interest. - The Commissioner rejected the applications, stating that the disclosures were not voluntary but made out of fear due to the search and seizure operations. Petitioners' Arguments: - The petitioners argued that their disclosures were voluntary, made in good faith, and prior to the detection of any concealment. - They contended that the Commissioner did not provide a speaking order, which is required for quasi-judicial decisions. - The petitioners cited various judicial precedents to support their claim that the Commissioner should have considered their applications on merits and provided reasons for rejection. Revenue's Arguments: - The Revenue argued that the disclosures were not voluntary but made after the petitioners became aware of the detection of concealed income. - They highlighted that the petitioners' statements were contradictory and that the gifts mentioned were fictitious. - The Revenue also contended that the petitioners had not satisfied the conditions for waiver under section 273A, including the requirement of voluntary and good faith disclosure. Court's Analysis: - The court examined whether the order passed by the Commissioner was a speaking order and whether the petitioners had made voluntary disclosures in good faith. - It was noted that the order passed by the Commissioner was brief, cryptic, and did not address the grounds raised by the petitioners. - The court emphasized that a quasi-judicial order must be a speaking order, providing reasons and addressing the grounds raised by the applicants. Legal Precedents: - The court referred to several judicial precedents, including Jakhodia Brothers v. CIT, Harjas Rai v. CIT, and Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad v. CIT, which highlighted the importance of voluntary disclosure and the requirement for a speaking order by the Commissioner. Conclusion: - The court held that the order passed by the Commissioner was not a speaking order and was liable to be set aside on this ground. - The court did not delve into the second question of whether the disclosures were voluntary and in good faith, as it decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for passing a proper order in accordance with law. Order: - The writ petitions were allowed, and the order dated September 12, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was set aside. - The applications under section 273A of the Act were restored, and the Commissioner was directed to decide the applications in accordance with law. - Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
