Section 273A relief cannot be curtailed by supplemental conditions; Commissioner's order was not shown to be appealable.

An order passed by the Commissioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, and a connected rectification order under section 154, were examined for appealability and writ-bar purposes. The note states that section 246 and section 253 do not make such Commissioner's orders appealable in this context, because the Commissioner is not an Assessing Officer and the relevant appeal provisions are confined to specified orders of that officer. It also states that section 273A(4) is supplemental, not overriding, so an application under section 273A(1) must be judged on that sub-section alone, and additional conditions in section 273A(4) cannot be used to deny waiver of penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an order of the Commissioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the connected rectification order under section 154, was appealable so as to bar writ jurisdiction; and (ii) whether the conditions in section 273A(4) controlled or overrode an application made under section 273A(1), thereby justifying refusal of waiver of penalty.

Issue (i): whether an order of the Commissioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the connected rectification order under section 154, was appealable so as to bar writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was examined with reference to the authorities enumerated in section 116 and the definition of Assessing Officer in section 2(7A). The Commissioner was not an Assessing Officer. Though section 246 refers to appeals against orders under section 154, that provision applies only to orders of an Assessing Officer. Section 253 similarly permits appeals from specified orders and does not include an order under section 273A passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, neither the original order under section 273A nor the rectification order under section 154 was shown to be appealable under those provisions.

Conclusion: the writ petition could not be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): whether the conditions in section 273A(4) controlled or overrode an application made under section 273A(1), thereby justifying refusal of waiver of penalty.

Analysis: The opening words of section 273A(4), namely, "without prejudice to the powers conferred on him by any other provision of this Act", indicate that sub-section (4) is supplemental and not overriding. An application made under section 273A(1) had to be considered on the requirements of that sub-section alone. Once those conditions were satisfied, failure to satisfy the additional requirements of section 273A(4) could not be used to refuse relief under section 273A(1). The authority was therefore bound to exercise the power vested in it, and its refusal amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.

Conclusion: section 273A(4) did not override section 273A(1), and the refusal of waiver of penalty was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: the impugned judgment was modified, the waiver of penalty was granted, and the connected rectification order was quashed, leaving the assessee entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: where a statute confers a discretionary relief under one sub-section and a separate, supplemental power under another, the later provision cannot be used to curtail the earlier one unless the statute expressly so provides; an authority must exercise the jurisdiction vested in it according to the correct sub-section.

---