2013 (1) TMI 541 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in filing advance tax - interest u/s 234B or section 234C - assessee claimed to be exempt as per circular dated 23.5.1996 - Held that - Ground taken by the assessee for payment of advance tax belatedly is that he suffered financial losses in his publication business. However, such a ground does not exist in the circular dated 23.5.1996 in order to grant exemption to the petitioner for payment of interest of late advance tax. Therefore, the revenue authority has rightly come to the conclusion that such waiver cannot be granted to the petitioner. Since this is a fiscal matter and has to be construed strictly, this Court after perusing the circular dated 23.5.1996 comes to a conclusion that the findings of the revenue authority on this aspect are indeed correct. Since the petitioner does not fall under the exemption category such exemption cannot be given to the petitioner - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting waiver of interest on late payment of advance tax based on conditions mentioned in Circular dated 23.5.1996.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the waiver of interest on late payment of advance tax, citing financial losses in the publication business as the reason for belated payment. The revenue authority rejected the application based on two conditions from the Circular dated 23.5.1996. The first condition required the assessee to file the return of income and pay the entire tax due except the interest for which waiver was requested. The second condition specified five categories for waiver, none of which the petitioner fell under. The revenue authority found that the petitioner fulfilled the first condition but not the second, thus denying the waiver of interest.

The Court examined the circular and concluded that the grounds provided by the petitioner for late payment did not align with the categories specified in the circular for exemption. As this was a fiscal matter, the Court held that strict interpretation was necessary. Since the petitioner did not fall within any exemption category, the waiver of interest could not be granted. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the revenue authority, stating that no interference was warranted with their order dated 29.12.2006.

In conclusion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated. The Court made no order as to costs in this matter.