- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
B.R Sound-N-Music v. O.P Bhardwaj And Another
Court Opinion — Structured Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The firm had been regularly assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the assessment year 1976-1977. For the assessment years 1978-1979, 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 the petitioner-firm filed returns voluntarily; no notices under Section 139(2) or Section 148 were issued to the petitioner for those years.
The Income Tax Officer levied interest under Section 139(8), penal interest under Sections 215/217 and penalties under Sections 271(1)(a), 273(b) and Section 271(1)(c) in respect of these returns. On 12-7-1985 the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act requesting waiver of the interest and penalties so levied. Appendix 'A' to that application contained particulars of due dates, filing dates, income returned, income assessed and particulars of interest, penal interest and penalties.
The Commissioner rejected the application in limine by an order dated 31-3-1986 on the ground that Section 273A applies only to voluntary disclosures of concealed income and does not apply to cases of delay in filing routine returns or defaults in payment of advance tax. The petition challenges the validity of that order under which the Commissioner declined to exercise his power under Section 273A.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 273A of the Income Tax Act applies to voluntary returns filed in good faith (i.e., whether a return voluntarily filed prior to the issue of notice under Section 139(2) or Section 148 constitutes a "voluntary and in good faith" full and true disclosure of income for the purposes of Section 273A).
- Whether the Commissioner may refuse to exercise his discretion under Section 273A on the ground that the case does not involve disclosure of "concealed" income but rather late filing of routine returns or defaults in advance tax.
- Whether the existence of pending appeals against assessment orders prevents the petitioner from maintaining the present writ petition challenging the Commissioner's refusal to exercise the power under Section 273A.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner complied with the conditions in Section 273A: it voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of income prior to issue of notice under Section 139(2) or Section 148, cooperated with enquiries and paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of tax/interest.
- There is nothing in the language of Section 273A to indicate that it applies only to voluntary disclosure of concealed income; a voluntary return filed in good faith is a voluntary disclosure within Section 273A.
- Pending appeals against assessment orders do not affect the independent power of the Commissioner under Section 273A to waive interest and penalties; thus, the writ petition challenging the Commissioner's refusal is maintainable.
Respondent's Arguments
- Section 273A was intended to apply only to voluntary disclosures of concealed income. This contention was supported by reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Finance Minister's speech when the predecessor provision (Section 271(4A)) was introduced.
- Because the petitioner has preferred appeals in respect of some of the assessment orders, the petitioner cannot challenge the Commissioner's action by way of the present writ petition.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Paramjit Singh Grewal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1980) 125 I.T.R 549 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) | Consideration of provisions of Section 271(4A) (now deleted) which used the expression "has voluntarily and in good faith made full disclosure of his income"; held that Act does not exclude persons who were previously submitting returns; Commissioner must decide waiver on merits where requirements are met. | Cited to support the construction that Section 273A (substantially similar to old Section 271(4A)) is not restricted to cases of concealed income and can apply to regular assessees who voluntarily disclose income by filing returns. |
| Ghulam Mohd. Sheikh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1977) 109 I.T.R 395 (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) | Construction of similar provisions of the Wealth Tax Act regarding voluntary disclosure. | Relied upon as support for the view that "voluntary and in good faith" disclosure includes disclosures made by filing returns and is not confined to a disclosure of previously concealed income. |
| Millan Bone Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1984) 149 I.T.R 663 (Allahabad High Court) | Construction of Section 273A; rejected contention that Section 273A's discretion cannot be exercised for a person who had been a regular assessee; held nothing in Section 273A prohibits exercise in such cases. | Used to support the conclusion that full and true disclosure for Section 273A includes disclosures made in regular returns and that the Commissioner's discretion can be exercised for regular assessees. |
| CWT v. B. Kempanna (citation in text: "1261. T.R 825 (Kar.) (CWT v. B. Kempanna)") | Authority cited for proposition that the power to waive under the relevant provision is independent of the right of appeal/revision under other provisions of the taxing statute. | Relied upon by the court to support the view that the power to waive interest and penalties under Section 273A is independent and is not affected by pending appeals. |
| Jagdish Agarwal v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, (1983) 143 I.T.R 941 | Considered alongside CWT v. B. Kempanna to demonstrate that the waiver power is independent of appeals. | Applied to show that pending appeals against assessment orders do not preclude the Commissioner from exercising discretion under Section 273A nor preclude the petitioner from challenging refusal to exercise that power by writ petition. |
| Purshottam Thackersey v. K.N. Anantarama Ayyar, (1985) 154 I.T.R 395 | Case where both the order levying penalty and the order refusing to waive penalty under the Wealth Tax Act were challenged; because an appeal was pending in respect of the penalty order, the writ petition was refused in respect of that order; the learned Judge also found refusal to waive was proper on facts. | Distinguished by the court as inapplicable to the present case. The opinion states that the decision in Purshottam Thackersey does not apply to the facts before the court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the language of Section 273A and identified the statutory prerequisites for its operation: that the person must have "voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of his income" prior to the issue of notices under Section 139(2) or Section 148; must have co-operated in any enquiry relating to assessment; and must have paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order under the Act. The court found that the petitioner had complied with these conditions.
On the central question of interpretation—whether Section 273A is limited to voluntary disclosures of concealed income—the court held that nothing in the language of Section 273A indicates such a limitation. The court reasoned that when a return is filed voluntarily and in good faith prior to the issue of statutory notice, the assessee has made a voluntary and good faith disclosure as required by Section 273A. The court also relied on several High Court decisions which had construed similar statutory language to include disclosures made in regular returns.
The court addressed the respondents' reliance on legislative history (Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Finance Minister's speech regarding the predecessor provision, Section 271(4A)). The court explained that material of legislative history can be inspected only for a limited purpose (to ascertain the mischief the Act seeks to remedy) and further observed that the materials relied upon concerned the earlier provision and not the present Section 273A; accordingly, they were of little assistance in interpreting Section 273A. The court emphasized that the language of Section 273A is plain and unambiguous and supports application to late returns filed in good faith.
Regarding the contention that pending appeals barred the present writ, the court explained that the present writ petition was directed not to the assessment orders themselves but to an order by the Commissioner under Section 273A failing to exercise his discretion to waive penalties and interest. The court held that the power to waive under Section 273A is an independent power not affected by the right of appeal or revision in relation to assessment orders; consequently, pending appeals were not relevant to the maintainability of the writ petition. The court cited authorities supporting that the waiver power is independent.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the petition.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The petitioner's challenge to the Commissioner's refusal under Section 273A was allowed; the Commissioner's in‑limine rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 273A was set aside (the court made the rule absolute in terms of the petitioner's prayer (a)). The respondents were directed to pay costs to the petitioner.
- Scope regarding precedent: The court relied upon existing High Court authorities construing comparable provisions to support its interpretation that voluntary returns filed prior to notice can satisfy the "voluntarily and in good faith" requirement in Section 273A. The opinion does not state that it is creating a new precedent beyond applying and aligning with those authorities.
Order accordingly.
1. The petitioners are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner-firm was regularly assessed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the assessment year 1976-1977. In respect of assessment years 1978-1979, 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 the petitioner-firm filed its returns also. These returns, however, were filed voluntarily. No notices under Section 139(2) or Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued to the petitioner. For these assessment years the Income Tax Officer has levied interest under Section 139(8), penal interest under Section 215/217 and penalties under Sections 271(1)(a), 273(b) and Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner made-an application dated 12-7-1985 addressed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requesting him to waive the interest and penalties so levied under the provisions of that section. Appendix ‘A’, which is annexed to this application and which is at page 38 of the petition, gives particulars of due date of the return in respect of each of these assessment years, actual date on which the return was filed, income returned, income assessed and particulars of interest, penal interest and penalties levied or leviable in respect of these returns. The application, of the petitioner has been rejected in limine by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that the provisions of section 273A are applicable only to voluntary disclosures of concealed income and not to a case where there is delay in filing a routine return of income or there is any default in payment of advance tax. This order is dated 31-3-1986.
2. The petitioner-firm has challlenged the validity of this order. The relevant provisions of section 273 are as follows:
273A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the … … Commissioner may, in his discretion, whether on his own motion or otherwise.—
(i) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of Section 139; or
XXXXXXXXX
(ii) reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable under sub-section (8) of Section 139 or Section 215 or Section 217 or the penalty imposed or imposable under Section 273, if he is satisfied that such person—
(a) in the case referred to in clause (i), has, prior to the issue of a notice to him under sub-section (2) of Section 139, voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of his income;
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(c) in the cases referred to in clause (iii), has, prior to the issue of a notice to him under sub-section (2) of Section 139, or where no such notice has been issued and the period for the issue of such notice expired, prior to the issue of notice to him under Section 148, voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of his income and has paid the tax on the income so disclosed,
and also has, in all the cases referred to in clauses (a),.. (c), co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year.
3. It is, therefore, necessary that the petitioner-firm should have voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of its income and that it should have done so and paid tax on the income disclosed prior to the issue of notice to it under section 139(2) or section 148 of the Income-tax Act. It is further necessary that the petitioner should co-operate in any enquiry relating to the assessment of its income and should have paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under the Income Tax Act in respect of the relevant assessment year. The petitioner-firm complied with all these conditions. It has been denied the benefit of section 273A on the ground that its case is not one of voluntary disclosure of concealed income. There is nothing, however, in the language of section 273A to suggest that the section should apply only to a voluntary disclosure of concealed income. When a return is filed, the assessee discloses his income in such return. When he does so voluntarily in good faith without any notice being issued under Section 139(2) or Section 148, he discloses his income voluntarily and in good faith as required under Section 273A. In fact, there are a number of judgments which support such a construction of Section 273A.
4. In the case of Dr. Paramjit Singh Grewal v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1980) 125 I.T.R 549 the provisions of Section 271(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Were considered. This section is now deleted. The present Section 273A is substantially similar to the old section 271(4A). The latter also uses the expression “has voluntarily and in good faith made full disclosure of his income”. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in that case observed (P. 552): “The Act nowhere provides that if the person concerned is an assessee in the previous years and had been submitting returns, he is not entitled to the benefit of that section. (Section 271(4)). If that had been the intention of the Legislature it could have specifically said so in the Act. It is a settled proposition of law that the provisions of a taxing statute have to be construed strictly. If the person making an application under this section fulfils aforesaid requirements, the Commissioner has to decide the question of waiving the imposition of penalty on merits in each case.” It relied upon a judgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the came of Ghulam Mohd. Sheikh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported in (1977) 109 I.T.R 395 which has construed similar provisions of the Wealth Tax Act in a similar fashion.
5. In the case of Millan Bone Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1984) 149 I.T.R 663 the Allahabad High Court construed the provisions of section 273A. In that case also it was contended that the assessee did not fulfil the condition-precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 273A(1) because the assessee's case could not be regarded as one of voluntary disclosure of concealed income. The assessee was regularly assessed to tax in the previous assessment years. The Allahabad High Court held that there was nothing in Section 273A(1) to show that the discretion under the section could not be exercised in the case of a person who had been a regular assessee. It negatived the contention that the assessee's case was not one of disclosure because the assessee was regularly assessed to tax in the previous years. A number of High Courts have therefore taken the view that a full and true disclosure of income required under Section 273A includes such disclosures made in regular returns filed under the Income Tax Act.
6. It was submitted by Mr. Jetley, learned Counsel for the respondents that if one looks at the Statement of Objects and Reasons as also the speech of the Finance Minister made in Parliament while introducing the Bill which incorporated the previous Section 271(4A) in the Income Tax Act, it would be seen that the section was applicable only to concealed income if voluntarily disclosed. In the first place, in interpreting a section of the Act one cannot look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons or the speech of the Finance Minister, except for a limited purpose of ascertaining the mischief which the Act seeks to remedy. Secondly, the Statement of Objects and Reasons or the speech of the Finance Minister relied upon are not in respect of the Bill which introduced Section 273A at all. They pertain to previous Section 271(4A) which is now replaced by Section 273A. It is difficult to see what assistance can be derived from these in interpreting Section 273A. The language of Section 273A is plain and unambiguous and it applies to the late returns filed by the assessee in the present case.
7. It was next submitted by Mr. Jetley that since the petitioner-firm has preferred appeals in respect of some of the assessment orders, it cannot come by way of present writ petition. The present writ petition, however, is not in respect of the subject-matter of the pending appeals. It is in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 273A where he has declined to exercise his power of waiver on the ground that Section 273A does not apply to the case of the petitioner. The power to waive interest and penalties under Section 273A is an independent power which is not affected in any way by the right of appeal and/or revision which is granted under the other provisions of the Income Tax Act. (See in this conection 1261. T.R 825 (Kar.) (CWT v. B. Kempanna) and (1983 143 I.T.R 941 (Jagdish Agarwal v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, M.P)). It is an independent power which can be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, even assuming that penalties and interest are rightly levied. The fact that an appeal is pending in respect of some of these assessment years is, therefore, not relevant or germane to the present writ petition.
8. Reliance sought to be placed on the case of Purshottam Thackersey v. K.N Anantarama Ayyar reported in (1985) 154 I.T.R 395 is misplaced. In that case both the order levying penalty as also the order refusing to waive penalty under the Wealth Tax Act were challenged by the writ petition. In respect of the order of penalty an appeal was pending and hence the learned single Judge of this High Court refused to entertain the writ petition in respect of the order of penalty. He also held that the order which refused to waive penalty was in proper exercise of discretion in that case and hence he refused to set aside that order also. This judgment does not apply to the present case.
9. Petition, therefore, succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Respondents to pay to the petitioner costs of the petition.
Order accordingly.
Alert