- (1.) By way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 11, 12, 13, 12904 of 1990 and Civil Writ Petn. No. 3952 of 1992 as they involve adjudication of similar questions of law. Facts in controversy being identical, have been taken from Civil Writ Petn. No. 11 of 1990. The petitioner, who is an income-tax assessee, was asked to pay various amounts as interest under ss. 139(1), 215 and 217, and penalty under ss. 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short to be referred as the Act) for asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The petitioner filed a petition under s. 273A of the Act, before the CIT, to reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed, by pleading that he had filed returns voluntarily, without issuance of any notice under s. 139(2) or s. 148 of the Act and had always co-operated with the Department. The CIT, Amritsar considered the application and rejected the same by holding as under: 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, arguments of the assessee's counsel and have also perused the assessment records. I do not find any merit in the application of the assessee and reject the same. In rejecting the petition of the assessee, I am influenced by the following considerations amongst others: (i) The assessee is an old assessee. He was being assessed to tax for more than a decade having substantial income. A perusal of the assessment order for asst. yr. 1978-79 shows that he was assessed at an income for the said year at Rs. 51,240 and the return for the said year was filed on 7th Sept., 1978. He was thus fully aware of the statutory liability in furnishing the returns of income on time. (ii) The income of the assessee for all the assessment years i.e. 1985-86 to 1987-88 was far in excess of the minimum liable to tax (Asst. yr. 1985-86--Rs. 59,710, 1986-87--Rs. 1,27,660 and 1987-88--Rs. 1,45,260) (iii) The main source of income of the assessee was share from M/s. Gopi Nath Kahan Chand. This firm had filed its returns of income for various assessment years as under: Even after the firm had filed returns of its income, the assessee failed to file his own returns of income. By delaying the filing of returns, the assessee thus withheld the payment of Government revenue for a very considerable period of time. (iv) The assessee is a habitual defaulter. Following are the details in respect of returns pertaining to the earlier assessment years: (v) For the asst. yr. 1984-85 the assessee availed the benefit of Amnesty Scheme. Even after availing the said benefit, the assessee continued to file delayed returns of income for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 upto 1987-88. No leniency can be shown to such habitual defaulter.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner is not present but as we have perused the paper book as well as the impugned order and have heard counsel for the respondent, are inclined to decide the petition on merits.
(3.) The petitioner has pleaded that while adjudicating an application under s. 273A of the Act, a CIT exercises powers specially conferred by the various sub-sections, clauses and sub-clauses of s. 273A of the Act and not the powers of an AO and, therefore, while accepting or rejecting an application under s. 273A of the Act, a CIT is required to confine his consideration to factors referred to in the sub-sections, clauses and sub-clauses of s. 273A of the Act. The CIT has, however, rejected the application by assigning reasons that fall within the domain of an AO, without taking into consideration factors set out in s. 273A of the Act.;