Mandatory addition of interest under section 18A(8) excludes discretionary waiver in the fifth proviso to subsection (6).

Challenge to penal interest under section 18A(8) raised three issues: delay, effect of dismissal of revision, and applicability of the fifth proviso to section 18A(6). Court found no inordinate delay in filing the writ. It held dismissal of a revisional application does not merge or alter the original Income-tax Officer orders. On statutory construction, the cross reference in subsection (8) supplies only the method of calculating interest and does not import the discretionary waiver power in the fifth proviso to subsection (6); consequently, interest under subsection (8) is mandatorily added and cannot be waived under that proviso.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition is barred by inordinate delay; (ii) Whether an order dismissing a revisional application operates to merge the orders under revision into the revisional order; (iii) Whether the fifth proviso to section 18A(6) (discretion to reduce or waive interest) applies to cases falling under section 18A(8) so as to permit waiver or reduction of penal interest charged under subsection (8).

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition is barred by inordinate delay.

Analysis: The petition challenged orders which were not appealable and a revision application to the Commissioner was pursued and dismissed; the petition to the Court was filed within months after the Commissioner's order and after studying relevant higher court authority. Discretionary standards for delay vary with circumstances and extraordinary relief requires vigilance but each case is fact-specific.

Conclusion: The petition is not barred by inordinate delay; delay objection overruled.

Issue (ii): Whether dismissal of a revisional application merges the orders under revision in the revisional order.

Analysis: Distinction between appeal and revision was applied: an appeal is a rehearing leading to merger upon confirmation, whereas dismissal of revision constitutes refusal to exercise supervisory jurisdiction and leaves the original orders intact and enforceable; prior authoritative decision supporting this distinction was followed.

Conclusion: Dismissal of a revisional application does not merge the orders under revision into the revisional order; the operative orders remain those of the Income-tax Officer.

Issue (iii): Whether the discretion to reduce or waive interest under the fifth proviso to section 18A(6) applies to assessments under section 18A(8).

Analysis: Subsection (6) expressly applies to taxpayers who paid tax under subsections (2) or (3) on their own estimate; subsection (8) applies where no payment was made in accordance with section 18A. Subsection (8) mandates that interest calculated in the manner laid down in subsection (6) shall be added to tax determined on regular assessment; the express reference is limited to the mode of calculating interest and does not import discretionary provisos. The legislative history shows the fifth proviso was added to subsection (6) only, vesting discretion in that context; rules framed under the proviso identify cases and circumstances for exercise of discretion but do not alter the plain mandatory language of subsection (8). Referential construction to import the waiver/reduction discretion into subsection (8) is not supported by text, context or legislative history; anomalous consequences do not justify rewriting clear statutory language.

Conclusion: The fifth proviso to section 18A(6) (discretion to reduce or waive interest) does not apply to cases governed by section 18A(8); interest under subsection (8) must be added as mandatorily calculated and cannot be waived or reduced under that proviso.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging penal interest charged under section 18A(8) fails on the merits and related preliminary objections, resulting in dismissal of the petition; the operative tax orders of the Income-tax Officer stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where subsection (8) of section 18A mandates addition of interest calculated in the manner laid down in subsection (6), the cross-reference is limited to the method of calculation and does not import discretionary provisos added to subsection (6); consequently, the discretionary power to reduce or waive interest conferred by the fifth proviso to subsection (6) is not available in cases falling under subsection (8).

---