Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner's order under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was vitiated because it was influenced by considerations relevant only to rule 117A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and whether the matter required fresh determination in accordance with the proper statutory criteria.
Analysis: The power under section 273A(1)(iii) is confined to considering whether the assessee made a voluntary and good faith disclosure of income and paid the tax on the amount disclosed before the statutory notices contemplated by the provision. The inquiry as to sufficient cause for delay in filing the return belongs to rule 117A and to the Income-tax Officer, not to the Commissioner acting under section 273A. Since the impugned order proceeded at least in part on the irrelevant question of tax planning as sufficient cause, the decision was based on an extraneous consideration and could not stand.
Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the application was directed to be reconsidered afresh under section 273A in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: Relief was granted to the assessee by setting aside the Commissioner's order and remitting the matter for fresh decision on the correct statutory basis.
Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary order under section 273A must be made only on the statutory conditions governing that provision, and an order influenced by considerations belonging to a different provision is liable to be set aside for taking into account extraneous matters.