HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11542 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision:
29. 11.2012 **** Jalandhar Restaurant .
Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .
Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH **** 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
**** Present: None for the petitioner Ms.Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT, KANT, J.
(Oral) (1).The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.06.1989 passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax, Patiala (Annexure P2) whereby its prayer to waive off the interest assessed under Section 139(8) and 217 of the Income Tax Act as also the penalties levied/leviable under Section 271(1)(a) and 273 for the Assessment Years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, was turned down.
(2).The impugned order reveals that the petitioner’s afore- stated request was not accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) on the ground that the petitioner failed to cooperate in payment of regular assessment tax and/or the assessment of the tax liability.
Similarly, the petitioner failed to cooperate in filing the total wealth statement of the partners for the relevant periods.
CWP No.11542 of 1989 -2– (3).It is apparent from the petitioner’s representation-cum- petition (Annexure P1) as also the averments made in para 3 of this petition that the Assessing Officer (AO) charged interest to the tune of Rs.7750/- under Section 139(8) and Rs.2587/- under Section 217 against the total income of Rs.66,780/- for the Assessment Year 1979-80.
Similarly, interest amounting to Rs.6657/- & Rs.751/-, for the Assessment Year 1980-81 against the total income of Rs.30,930/- as well as Rs.1400/- & Rs.385/-, for the Assessment Year 1981-82 against the total income of Rs.30,720/-, under Sections 139(8) & 216, respectively were charged.
No penalty under Section 271 and 273 could apparently be imposed on the petitioner as meanwhile this Court vide order dated September 11, 1989 stayed recovery of penalty and interest from the petitioner.
(4).Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and going through the impugned order, we are of the considered view that the controveRs.involved is essentially a question of fact, namely, non- cooperation of the petitioner in the matter of payment of regular assessment tax and/or assessment of its tax liability and wealth statement, hence it calls for no interference in exercise of our writ jurisdiction.
However, having regard to the fact that the impugned order was passed in the year 1989 and no penalty could be levied or recovered from the petitioner during all these yeaRs.we allow the writ petition in part and modify the impugned order(s) to the extent that no further action to impose any penalty in relation to the proceedings in CWP No.11542 of 1989 -3– hand under Section 271 and 273 of the Income Tax Act shall be initiated against the petitioner.
(SURYA KANT) Judge 29.11.2012 (R.P.NAGRATH) vishal shonkar Judge