1998 (10) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order passed by the Settlement Commission regarding waiver of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act 1961.
2. Interpretation of Settlement Commission's power to waive interest.
3. Consideration of subsequent decisions by the Settlement Commission.
4. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to grant waiver of interest.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a doctor, filed a writ petition to challenge the order of the Settlement Commission refusing to waive interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act 1961. The Settlement Commission initially did not provide a basis for denying the waiver of interest. The petitioner sought clarification and direction on this matter. The Commission cited a previous order which held that it lacked the power to waive interest under the mentioned sections, leading to the present dispute.

The petitioner argued that a subsequent decision by the Income-tax Settlement Commission Mumbai Special Bench recognized the Commission's authority to consider reducing or waiving interest under the specified sections. He requested a reconsideration based on this new ruling. The respondent acknowledged the overruling of the earlier decision but noted that it was pending before the apex court for review.

Upon careful consideration, the Court referred to the decision in Anjum Mohammed Hussein Ghaswala case, where the Settlement Commission reversed its previous stance and allowed for the reduction or waiver of interest upon proper application. The Court held that the Commission's denial of the petitioner's request for waiver was not legally sustainable in light of this new ruling. It emphasized that the Commission should examine such requests based on individual circumstances and grant relief where justified.

The Court set aside the Commission's order and directed it to reconsider the petitioner's application for reduction or waiver of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C in accordance with the law and the recent decision. It clarified that the application was still pending before the Commission, eliminating the need for a new filing. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the case.