2007 (1) TMI 137 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 119(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for waiver of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C for assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93.

Summary:
The petitioners challenged the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax's order declining waiver of interest levied under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act for the mentioned assessment years. The petitioners' undisclosed income was declared during a search action u/s 132 of the Act, leading to revised returns and interest levied by the Assessing Officer. The Chief Commissioner rejected the waiver application citing reasons related to outstanding tax liability, voluntary disclosure, and absence of seized cash. The High Court found the Chief Commissioner's reasoning flawed on all counts and directed a reconsideration of the waiver application in accordance with the law.

1. Outstanding Tax Liability Issue:
The Chief Commissioner based the denial of interest waiver on an outstanding tax liability of Rs. 9,06,449, despite the petitioner having paid more taxes than due. The Court held that the adjustment of taxes towards interest was incorrect, and the refusal to waive interest due to alleged unpaid taxes was unsustainable.

2. Voluntary Disclosure Issue:
The Chief Commissioner contended that additional income was disclosed after a notice u/s 148, questioning the voluntary nature of the disclosure. The Court disagreed, noting that the disclosure was made during the search and revised returns were filed following a Commissioner's order, thus rejecting the Chief Commissioner's reasoning.

3. Seizure of Cash Issue:
The Chief Commissioner cited the absence of seized cash to deny interest waiver under sections 234B and 234C. The Court highlighted that the Board circular focuses on the assessee's ability to pay taxes post-search, noting that the petitioner's entire stock was seized, impacting their ability to pay taxes immediately. The Court found the denial based on the absence of seized cash unjustified.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Chief Commissioner's order and instructed a reevaluation of the petitioner's waiver application, emphasizing the incorrectness of the reasons cited for denial.