1991 (10) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent year 1983-84, the petitioner filed his return on January 30, 1985, disclosing his total income at Rs. 52,418 stated to be the share incomes from four firms of which one is D. K. B. and Company, Quilon. The income returned was based on the share income of the firms as originally disclosed in the return. We are not concerned with the other firms except D. K. B. and Company, for, only the income disclosed by that firm proved to be erroneous. The petitioner filed the return based on the figures furnished by that firm. But, consequent on a raid, that firm filed a revised return on April 2, 1985, disclosing a further sum of Rs. 41 lakhs, which was accepted by the third respondent, Income-tax Officer, and the assessment of the firm was made on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... produced as exhibit P-4. It is the said orders, exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-4, that are challenged in this writ petition. The contention on behalf of the petitioner was that the enhanced demand and interest arose only because of the revised return filed by the firm, D. K. B. and Company, Quilon, after submitting the return by the petitioner on the basis of the original share income furnished by the firm. The petitioner also remitted the entire dues in instalments as directed by the third respondent. The advance tax payments were also made. It was also contended that at the time of filing the return, the petitioner could not have anticipated the extra share income because of the additions made subsequently in the assessment of the firm, Mess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee to waive the interest in full for the year 1983-84 cannot be considered fair and reasonable, and thereafter, confirmed the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. If the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner itself was a considered order, I would not have interfered with the order passed in revision by the first respondent. The contention of the petitioner that when the return is filed by the petitioner, he could not have anticipated the revised return filed by the firm, the further fact that the second respondent had completely waived the interest in the case of the firm as well as the other points raised in the revision have not been adverted to by the Commissioner. No doubt, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf....