| Case ID |
04e9ed63-c48c-464b-8ce3-186f60e40242 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1989 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 05, 1989 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 05, 1989 |
| Decision |
The court ruled that the three revised returns filed by the petitioner must be construed as voluntary returns under section 273A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner had wrongly concluded that the returns were not voluntary due to the timing of their filing in relation to survey operations. The court emphasized that a return containing full and true disclosure does not necessarily lose its voluntariness simply because it is filed after the commencement of survey operations. The decision highlighted the importance of the subjective state of mind of the assessee and the relevance of objective facts in determining whether the returns were filed voluntarily. The court set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and remitted the matter for reconsideration. |
| Summary |
In the case of Sujatha Rubbers v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court addressed the issue of whether revised income tax returns filed under the Amnesty Scheme were voluntary. The petitioner, Sujatha Rubbers, filed revised returns for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85 during the Amnesty Scheme. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had levied interest and penalties, leading to an appeal being filed. The Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under section 273A, arguing that the returns were filed out of fear due to ongoing survey operations. However, the High Court found that the returns contained full and true disclosures and that the mere fact of filing after a survey did not negate voluntariness. The court held that the element of fear must be linked to imminent penal action, which was not established in this case. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner to consider relevant facts when exercising discretion under section 273A. |
| Court |
Visakhapatnam High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M.N. Rao,
P. Venkatarama Reddy
|
| Lawyers |
Y. Ratnakar,
S.R. Ashik
|
| Petitioners |
Sujatha Rubbers
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1992 SLD 1451,
(1992) 194 ITR 355
|
| Other Citations |
Madhukar Manilal Modi v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 318 (Guj.),
Hakam Singh v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 228 (All.),
Mool Chand Mahesh Chand v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 1 (All.),
A.N. Sarvaria v. CWT [1986] 158 ITR 803 (Delhi),
Hira Singh v. CWT [1982] 134 ITR 438 (Punj. & Har.),
S.R. Jadav Desai v. Sixth WTO [1980] 121 ITR 531 (Kar.),
Shankara Apaya Swami v. WTO [1976] 103 ITR 649 (Kar.),
Alukkas Jewellery v. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 198/ 43 Taxman 184 (Ker.),
Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal AIR 1969 SC 707
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
273A,
139(8),
217,
271(1)(c),
133A
|