2017 (8) TMI 649 - HC - Income Tax

waiver of interest u/s 220(2) - Jurisdiction - the officer, who heard the petitioner in person was not the Officer/Chief Commissioner, who decided the matter - Held that - It is true that the Chief Commissioner, who offered opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 21.03.2016 and on 24.03.2016 is not the Chief Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order. The legal principle is that the person who hears must decide. Therefore, by applying the said principle to the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to send back the matter for fresh consideration before the first respondent, on the plea for waiver of interest under Section 220(2) and Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order for assessment year 2003-2004 and waiver of interest under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of remanding the matter for fresh consideration due to the officer hearing not being the one deciding the case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent for the assessment year 2003-2004 and to waive interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 220(2), and Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions for waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C as the principal component of the income tax demand was not paid. The court upheld the rejection of the waiver application for these sections. However, regarding interest under Section 220(2A) and Rule 5, the petitioner argued that a personal hearing was necessary to demonstrate genuine hardship due to asset attachment and prosecution initiation. The court considered issuing notice to respondents to verify if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

2. The court inclined to consider remanding the matter as the officer who heard the petitioner was not the one deciding the case. The respondents confirmed that the Chief Commissioner who conducted the personal hearing was not the one passing the order, leading to the legal principle that the person who hears must decide. Consequently, the court partially allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection of the waiver request under Section 220(2) and Rule 5. The matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing and a decision in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and the court's decision regarding the assessment year and waiver of interest under the Income Tax Act, 1961.