TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner is an individual. On March 30, 1992, he filed his returns of income for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93. Also, he filed an application under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said application was allowed. 4. That, in the returns of income for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93, thus filed the petitioner disclosed certain income and investment representing income, which he had not disclosed earlier. The petitioner filed the above returns voluntarily prior to detection by the Assessing Officer. 5. That, thereupon, the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93 were completed under section 143(3) of the Act, interest under sections 234A, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....005, by a Division Bench of this court (annexure 2 to the writ petition). The relevant passage from the said judgment is reproduced below: "From a bare reading of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the detection is to be made by the Assessing Officer and not by any other officer. In the present case we find that the detection as mentioned by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, has been made by the Additional Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Unit-I, Kanpur, who is not the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. Further, in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Bhairav Lal Verma v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 855, the word 'voluntarily' occurring in section 273A of the Act has been interpreted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed." In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of this court, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, again passed order dated December 22,2005, with regard to the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 rejecting the petition filed by the assessee requesting for waiver of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C (annexure 4 to the writ petition). The concluding part of the aforesaid impugned order dated December 22, 2005, is reproduced: "In the present case, the assessee had filed his returns of income as above only after detection of incriminating materials in respect of huge investments/expenditures by the ADIT (Inv.) resulting in such filing or revising of retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the parties. The judgment and order dated August 5, 2005, passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 353 of 2000 (referred to above), having attained finality, the same is now binding upon the Department and could not be hoodwinked. By entertaining the "petition" of the assessee in pursuance of this judgment dated August 5, 2005, the Department-respondent clearly acquiesced to the same. It is no pleasure for this court to comment or pass strictures. But a glaring infraction of settled principle of law by the higher authorities of the Department of Revenue cannot be ignored. The higher the authority/officer, the more onerous duties and expectancy to act cautiously so that the faith of the public in the administrati....