AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14724 to 14727 of 1993 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts and the issue involved are identical in all the petitions. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No.14724 of 1993 which may be briefly noticed.
(2.) IN CWP No.14724 of 1993, the petitioner was co -owner of agricultural land measuring 9 bighas 14 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Barewal, District Patiala. The said land was acquired by the State Government on 12.10.1979 and the compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner challenged the award before the District Judge, Patiala. Compensation was enhanced to Rs. 96,800/ - per acre. On further appeal, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,42,000/ - per acre by this Court vide judgment dated 7.10.1988. Aggrieved by the judgment, the State of Punjab filed LPA No.248 of 1989 in this Court which was dismissed on March 8, 1989. The petitioner received compensation from July to November 1989 in two installments. The petitioner filed income tax returns for the assessment years 1982 -83 to 1988 -89 prior to the issuance of notices either under section 139(2) or under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"). The assessment was completed on the basis of income declared by the Assessing Officer on 30.4.1991. However, the Assessing Officer charged interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act and also ordered to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (a) and 273(b) of the Act. The penalty proceedings ordered to be initiated were later on withdrawn. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh Range Chandigarh deleted the interest charged under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act in respect of assessment years 1982 -83 to 1984 -85. The department went in appeal against the said order before the Tribunal. The petitioner moved a petition under section 273A for waiver of interest and penalty imposable/imposed for the assessment years 1983 -84 to 198889 on 9.1.1991. According to the petitioner, the returns for the relevant assessment years had been filed voluntarily and in good faith which were accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 9.2.1993, Annexure P2 held that the liability to pay tax was known to the assessee on 7.10.1988 and at best he should have filed the returns by 30.11.1988 when he had received the judgment of the High Court on 4.11.1988 but the same were filed on 18.5.1990, thus, there was reasonable cause for delay for the period upto 30.11.1988 and for the remaining period, there was no proper justification for delay in filing the returns. The Commissioner, thus, waived interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act upto 30.11.1988 only. Hence, these petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enhanced compensation and interest thereon was received and it was on that basis that the returns were filed for the earlier years and since the assessees had not known the exact amount of enhanced compensation and the interest in those years, charging of interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act in toto should have been waived. He placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shanti Sarup Sharma v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (1999) 237 ITR 376 to submit that the compensation and interest received from the Government on a subsequent date which was not ascertained at the time of due date for filing of the return for a particular assessment year, the interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act was liable to be waived. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner had erred in partly allowing the petition filed under section 273A of the Act. Once the conditions as enumerated in Section 273A of the Act were fulfilled by the assessee, interest under sections 139(8)/217 of the Act ought to have been waived completely. Reliance was also placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apex Finance and Leasing Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, (1994) 207 ITR 781, Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.Parkash Devi v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Jullundur, (1983) 141 ITR 122, and Single Bench judgment of this Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2004) 265 ITR 495 in support of the contentions.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that the writ petitions deserve to succeed.;