STERLING COMPUTERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Writ Petn. No. 7231 of 1991 & Writ Misc. Petn. No. 11090 of 1991, decided on September 10, 1998.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The petitioner challenges the provisions providing for levy of additional tax under section 143 (1A) of the IT Act, 1961, introduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, on the ground that the same is discriminatory and unconstitutional. This provision is one made for the levy of addition income-tax in the circumstances referred to in that provision viz., where the income shown by any person in the return is increased or the loss declared in the return is reduced or is converted into an income. The said section is intended to encourage the assessee to be honest, while filing the returns and also to discourage the assessees from juggling with the figures by treating it as income not received, or by treating the amounts as a loss or as an item of expenditure. If after the provisions are properly applied to the return submitted by the assessees, the adjustments are found to be warranted, then the provisions providing for the levy of additional income-tax on the amounts so adjusted will operate. There can therefore be no doubt as to the section being a salutary one in the public interest and the interest was of the citizens of the country who are to pay the tax assessed under the Act with honesty and without withholding the amounts properly due to the state. This provision does not in any manner violate Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, as there is no discrimination among the assessees. A person who is dishonest and who does not declare his income correctly cannot be put in the same class as that of the other assessee, who truthfully declares their income and item of expenditure and who does not conceal or withhold the income received by them. The additional income-tax leviable on persons whose returns do not state the figures accurately under the relevant heads is in no way discriminatory or unjust and the levy of such additional tax does not amount to deprivation of property without any authority of law nor is the imposition of such additional tax beyond the power of the Parliament.
2. There is no merit in the challenge made to this provision.
3. A similar view has been taken by an another learned single Judge in the case of Kerala State Coir Corpn. Ltd. vs. Union of India (1994) 121 CTR (Ker) 245 : (1994) 210 ITR 121 (Ker) : TC S10.1195. Writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed. No costs.