TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms is the substantial income of the petitioners. The petitioners filed returns and paid advance tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as per the accounts of the firms for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. The assessment orders for the said three assessment years were made on March 25, 1987, March 7, 1988 and March 28, 1988. The firms were also assessed for the assessment years and the incomes returned by the firms were increased by additions. Consequently, the incomes returned by the petitioners as incomes from the firms also were not accepted and assessed at higher figures. The advance tax paid by the petitioners for the assessment years was less than 75 per cent. of the assessed tax an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts, the Commissioner took the view that conditions Nos. (1) to (4) of rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules under which reduction/waiver of interest was permissible, were not fulfilled. Therefore, the applications for reduction/waiver made by the original petitioners had been considered by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of powers under rule 40(5) of the Rules. The Commissioner was of the view that the reduction of the income of the firms as a result of the appellate orders was not a matter that needed agitation in the revision applications as the assessees would automatically get necessary relief as and when the correct share incomes are adopted and the assessments are revised consequent to the appellate orders made in the case of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be said to be justified if it is proved or shown to be fair or right or according to justice or backed by sufficient reason". Finally, the learned judge came to the conclusion that there was mechanical consideration and mechanical rejection of the claims put forward in the revision petitions by the petitioners and that as more than 95 per cent. of the income of the assessees was from the firms and, if as a matter of fact, they bona fide paid the advance tax as per the accounts given to them from the firms, they should not be penalised with interest if it is subsequently found that their income was high. In the result, the learned single judge maintained the 50 per cent. reduction granted to the assessees by the Deputy Commissioner, but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e enjoined by sub-rule (v) is made out. There is no warrant for this proposition in the language of rule 117A(v). On the other hand, it is clear that the sub-rule gets attracted and the question of exercising the discretion arises only if the circumstance mentioned in it is found to exist. The discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably." Mr. Menon also relied on a decision in Smt. Harbans Kaur v. CWT [1997] 224 ITR 418, where the Supreme Court considered a similar question under the Wealth-tax Act. It was pointed out that the discretion vested in the Commissioner under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, clearly showed that the power conferred on the Commissioner is to be exercised by him in such manner as he deems just and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total failure of application of mind. May be, in their discretion, the authorities took the view that not more than 50 per cent. of the waiver of interest was justified. That, per se, is not a matter which would call for interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Mr. Menon relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shenoy and Co. v. CTO [1985] 155 ITR 178, to contend that though originally two petitions were disposed of by a common judgment of the learned single judge, the Revenue has filed only one appeal as the judgment delivered in one appeal would be equally applicable to the other proceedings also. Finally, it appears to us that there is some self-contradiction in the judgment under appeal. If the o....