TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm's business had been adversely affected due to the money block on the petitioner's account in the U.S.A. to the tune of US $124,122.51 with one A.Q. Ansari to whom the goods were exported in the U.S.A. The petitioner, in para. 3 of the writ petition, indicated the income of the petitioner's firm for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 in the following manner: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment year Income assessed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purposes was determined at Rs.60,530, he handed over the relevant papers to the tax consultant for doing the needful. The return of income was, accordingly, prepared by the tax consultant after depositing a sum of Rs.20,666 as advance tax vide demand draft dated October 21, 1985. He has further contended that the above return of income was filed voluntarily with out having been given any notice for the same. The Income-tax Officer, vide his order dated January 31, 1989 under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") assessed the tax at Rs.20,666 as referred to above and imposed a penalty together with interest for the assessment year 1978-79 in the following manner: ---------------------------------------------....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur vide his order dated August 22, 1989 rejected the petitioner's contention and communicated the same on December 23, 1989 for the reason that since the assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in section 273A of the Act it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the Income-tax Officer. It is to be noted that besides confirming the demand of Rs.97,914 on the income of Rs.60,533 against the petitioner for the assessment year in question, prosecution was also launched against the petitioner by way of a complaint under section 276CC of the Act, the petitioner having failed to furnish the return of income within the stipulated time, which was required to furnish under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jaipur, of which a criminal case was registered vide Case No. 373 of 1986 of which the proceedings are still pending before the said court. During the course of hearing, Shri J.K. Singhi, the learned counsel representing the Revenue, has vociferously contended that instead of participating in the proceedings by setting up a defence, if any, available to the petitioner before the competent court, i.e., CJM (EO), Jaipur, the petitioner has come up by way of this writ petition challenging the assessment orders and also imposition of penalties as referred to hereinabove. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the proper course available to the petitioner was that he has first to exhaust the remedy available to him under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9, passed under section 271(1)(a) of the Act by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Jaipur. A perusal of the said order reveals that the default notice was issued to the petitioner as per section 274 read with section 271(1)(a) of the Act and served upon the assessee on March 9, 1987 calling upon him to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed in view of the default. Opportunity was also afforded to the assessee of hearing as on December 12, 1988, but no reply was filed. Thereafter the assessee had personally appeared before the Income-tax Officer and had filed the return under the Amnesty Scheme, which came into existence on November 15, 1985 and that his case was fully covered by the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not properly advised as regards filing of this writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and instead he should have participated in the proceedings before the competent court, viz., CJM (EO), Jaipur, by setting up any defence as admissible to him in accordance with law. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax vide communication dated March 21, 1991 (annexure 6), addressed to the petitioner, on the petitioner's application under section 279(2) of the Act, had given option as regards compounding of the offence under section 276CC of the Act for the assessment year 1978-79 by depositing the penalty of Rs.99,871 towards the composition charges, in addition to the litigation expenses, if any, for which he was r....