IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.5136/1988 Date of Decision: 17.9.2009. Shri Mohinder Pal Chanan ..........Petitioner. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: None for the parties. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? JASWANT SINGH,J. Prayer in the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is for quashing of the order dated 28.3.1988 (P/1) passed by respondent no.1-Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and further for directing the respondents to dispose of the application (P/6) under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short the Act) as per law. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition CWP No.5136/1988 2 as alleged by the petitioner are that he is a petty trader and filed his income tax returns for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 by showing an income of Rs.16,853/- and Rs.32,350/- respectively. The return for the year 1978-79 was examined by the respondent no.2-Income Tax Officer, Ward-A, Phagwara on 28.2.1981 and found no discrepancy in the accounts maintained by the petitioner yet the assessment was completed at an amount of Rs.18,000/- on the ground that the assessee had agreed to be assessed on net income of Rs.18,000/- including premium of Rs.952/- and the assessment order dated 28.2.1981 is annexed as Annexure P/8. It is further alleged that the assessment for the year 1979-80 was completed by respondent no.2 on 31.3.1982 on the return submitted by the petitioner and no addition was made by respondent no.2-Income Tax Officer. A copy of the assessment order dated 31.3.1982 is attached as Annexure P-9. It is also alleged that the petitioner had made full payment of the income tax and nothing is due against him but still the respondent no.2 imposed a penalty of Rs.110/- for late filing of return and also imposed a penalty of Rs.200/- for alleged failure to file the estimate of advance tax, for the assessment year 1978-79. Similarly for the assessment year 1979-80 an amount of Rs.2753/- under Section 271(1)(a) and an amount of Rs.300/- under Section 273(2)(a) was imposed as penalty as well as an interest amounting to Rs.390/- was imposed under Section 220(2). It is further alleged that after receiving the notice from respondent no.2, for deposit of penalty and interest, he filed a petition under Section 273A on CWP No.5136/1988 3 10.12.1987 (P/6) before respondent no.1 and subsequently filed a revised petition on 8.1.1988 (P/7) for waiver of the penalty and interest. That respondent no.1 vide his order dated 28.3.1988 (P/1) rejected the petition under Section 273A of the petitioner without any basis. Hence the present writ petition. Neither any reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents nor any one appeared on behalf of the parties. We have perused the paper book and find that the writ petition has merit and deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.3.1988 (P/1) reveals that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that “although there is no time limit for filing of application under Section 273A of the Act, yet the assessee must observe some time limit for seeking the relief. The petition for the assessment year 1978-79 and 1979-80 having been filed very late, are therefore not entertained and the same are rejected”. The reasoning adopted by the respondent no.1 is wholly baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. When respondent no.1 himself has conceded that there is no time limit for filing an application under Section 273A of the Act then there is no justification for rejecting the same only on the ground that the assessee must observe some time limit for seeking relief and the assessee cannot be penalised for the same if there is no law of limitation prescribed under the Act for preferring an application under Section 273A, then the assessee was within his right while filing the application dated 10.12.1987(P/6) and revised CWP No.5136/1988 4 application dated 8.1.1988 ( P/7). It is not permissible in law for authorities to add or subtract to the unambiguous and clear provisions of statutes. Consequently the writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 28.3.1988 (P/1) is quashed and respondent no.1 is directed to decide the application dated 10.12.1987(P/6) and revised application dated 8.1.1988 (P/7) in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. (M.M.Kumar) (Jaswant Singh) Judge Judge 17.9.2009. joshi