2019 (5) TMI 192 - HC - Income Tax

Waiver of interest imposed u/s 234-A, 234-B and 234-C - Learned Single Judge,had remanded the matter back to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, for considering and deciding again the applications of waiver of interest for assessment years 1993 1994 and 1994 1995 respectively. HELD THAT - Since the matter has been only remanded back to the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for reconsidering the applications for waiver of interest for the assessment years 1993 1994 and 1994 1995, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Any observation made by the Learned Single Judge, will not influence the reconsideration of these applications for waiver of interest at the hands of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as the same cannot be treated as finding of facts by the learned Single Judge, but it is only the reasons or observations made for remanding back the matter. Therefore, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax shall decide the applications for waiver of interest afresh in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations of the Learned Single Judge.

Issues:

1. Remand of applications for waiver of interest under Sections 234-A, 234-B, and 234-C of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995.
2. Jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to reduce or waive interest.
3. Consideration of unavoidable circumstances for delay in filing returns.
4. Voluntariness of filing revised returns.
5. Effect of Notice under Section 148 of the Act on filing revised returns.
6. Treatment of gift from Non-Resident Indian in taxable income.
7. Competence of the Chief Commissioner to determine waiver or reduction of interest.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to the remand of applications for waiver of interest under Sections 234-A, 234-B, and 234-C of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. The Learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for reconsideration based on specific grounds presented by the petitioner.

2. The key issue addressed was the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner to reduce or waive interest. The petitioner challenged the Chief Commissioner's decision, arguing that the Chief Commissioner had the discretion to consider waiver or reduction of interest beyond the parameters set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

3. The court considered the petitioner's claim of unavoidable circumstances leading to the delay in filing returns. The Chief Commissioner's decision was scrutinized for not adequately considering whether the delay was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

4. Another crucial aspect was the voluntariness of filing revised returns. The court examined the timeline of events, including the issuance of a Notice under Section 148 of the Act, to determine the voluntary nature of the revised returns filed by the petitioner.

5. The treatment of a gift from a Non-Resident Indian in the taxable income was also deliberated upon. The court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of whether the exclusion of the gift was justified and whether the petitioner had sufficient grounds to consider it as an unavoidable circumstance.

6. The judgment highlighted the competence of the Chief Commissioner to determine waiver or reduction of interest based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court directed the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the applications for waiver of interest without being influenced by the observations made by the Learned Single Judge.

7. Ultimately, the court disposed of the Writ Appeals, allowing the remand of the applications for waiver of interest for further consideration by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, emphasizing the need for an unbiased review of the facts and circumstances presented by the petitioner.

← Previous Next →