2002 (12) TMI 53 - HC - Income Tax

By this writ petition the petitioner, seeks to impugn an orderpassed by the Income-tax Officer, declining to waive/reduce the interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as also passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, affirming the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. The mere fact that the delay in completion of the assessment was occasioned because of the search conducted by the Revenue at the premises of the assessee would not per se show that the assessee was responsible for the delay. How and in what manner the assessee was responsible for delaying the proceedings must be indicated in the order refusing to reduce or waive the interest charged. It is also evident from the afore-extracted portion of the order of the Commissioner that he has also laid emphasis on an irrelevant fact that there was no delay in completion of the assessment, which could be attributed to the Department. - Held that application of the assessee for waiver of interest on account of delay in completing assessment in accordance with law and liable to succeed

Issues:
1. Waiver of interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Exercise of discretion by the Income-tax Officer and Commissioner under rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Issue 1: Waiver of interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner, an individual deriving income from various sources, filed a return for the assessment year 1972-73 but faced interest charges under sections 215 and 139(8) of the Act due to alleged default in advance tax payment and return filing delay. The petitioner sought waiver of interest charged under section 215 through an application under rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. However, both the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the waiver request, attributing the delay in assessment completion to a search conducted at the petitioner's premises. The Commissioner upheld the decision, stating that the delay was not due to the Department, justifying the rejection of the waiver request. The petitioner challenged these decisions, arguing that the delay was not attributable to them and that there was no lack of cooperation in the investigation conducted by the Revenue. The High Court observed that the authorities failed to consider the application for waiver in the correct perspective, emphasizing that the reasons for attributing the delay to the petitioner were not adequately addressed in the orders. The Court held that the authorities did not exercise discretion judiciously, as required under rule 40, and quashed the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the petitioner and absolving them from paying interest under section 215.

Issue 2: Exercise of discretion by the Income-tax Officer and Commissioner under rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 grants the Income-tax Officer the authority to reduce or waive interest payable under section 215 or section 217 under specific circumstances, such as when the delay in assessment completion is not attributable to the assessee. The High Court highlighted that the crux of reducing or waiving interest under section 215 hinges on determining whether the assessee caused the delay in assessment completion. In this case, the Court found that the authorities did not appropriately assess the petitioner's application for interest waiver. The Court noted that the mere occurrence of a search by the Revenue at the petitioner's premises does not automatically attribute the delay to the petitioner. The Court criticized the lack of factual basis in the orders to support the attribution of delay to the petitioner and emphasized that the authorities failed to consider the application for waiver in accordance with the law. Consequently, the High Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable and ruled in favor of the petitioner, absolving them from the liability to pay interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court decided not to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer due to the age of the assessment record and the absence of evidence attributing the delay to the petitioner.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of interest waiver under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the discretionary exercise by the Income-tax Officer and Commissioner under rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as adjudicated by the High Court.

← Previous Next →