1991 (8) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks to quash the order declining waiver of interest under Income-tax Act.
2. Interpretation of statutory provisions and legal implications overlooked.
3. Claim of exemption under section 10(20) rejected by Income-tax Officer.
4. Appeal dismissed by Commissioner and matter pending before Tribunal.
5. Petitioner seeks waiver of interest despite pending appeal.
6. Second respondent's order challenged on grounds of natural justice.
7. Internal remedies available under Income-tax Act.
8. Argument for violation of principles of natural justice rejected.
9. Petitioner's claim for waiver of interest not justified.
10. Lack of error of law in the impugned order.
11. Relief claimed in appeal pending before Tribunal.
12. Multiple attempts for same relief not permitted.
13. Writ petition dismissed.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay pertains to a case where the petitioner sought to quash an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which declined the petitioner's request to waive interest imposed under sections 139(8) and 217(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1987-88. The petitioner raised various grounds challenging the interpretation of statutory provisions and the rejection of their claim for exemption under section 10(20) by the Income-tax Officer. An appeal against the order was dismissed by the Commissioner, and the matter was pending before the Tribunal.

Despite the pending appeal, the petitioner requested waiver of interest from the Income-tax Officer, which was subsequently declined by the second respondent. The court noted that the legal position had been clarified by the Tribunal earlier, and the petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing returns and paying advance tax. The court emphasized that the petitioner had internal remedies available under the Income-tax Act, such as moving the Commissioner of Income-tax or seeking revision under section 264.

The court rejected the argument that violation of principles of natural justice warranted interference, stating that the waiver of interest is discretionary and must be justified by the party seeking it. The court found the amended ground challenging the order on natural justice grounds to be vague and not supported by particulars. Additionally, the court declined jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution as the relief sought was already part of the pending appeal before the Tribunal. The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petition, stating that multiple attempts for the same relief were not permitted, and no error of law was found in the impugned order.