9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lood cancer, and to which, he succumbed shortly thereafter. It appears that the order was perfunctory, which is why, the Division Bench in paragraph 7 observed that the impugned order of the Chief Commissioner merely observed that the condition prescribed in Notification dated 23.05.1996 was not satisfied. We may indicate herein that the notification/circular dated 23.05.1996 precedes the circular in issue, i.e., Circular dated 26.06.2006. Circular dated 26.06.2006 supersedes the earlier circular dated 23.05.1996. We are, thus, concerned only with Circular dated 26.06.2006. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the judgment in the matter of : N.Haridas & Co. (cited supra) cannot help the cause of the respondent in this case. Therefore, the appeal will have to be allowed. - W. A. Nos. 2020 to 2024 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellants : Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan For the Respondent : Mr. S. V. Jayakumar JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J. ) 1. These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against five (5) orders of even date, i.e., 22.07.2010, passed by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondent that pursuant to the reassessment carried by the Revenue qua the period in issue, the respondent not only paid the reassessed tax, but also interest, as demanded under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the 1961 Act. 4. The record shows that the respondent filed separate petitions of even date, 19.06.2006, qua the aforementioned period, before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Chennai-34, (hereafter referred to as 'the Chief Commissioner'), for waiver of interest claimed under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the 1961 Act. These petitions for waiver of interest were pivoted on the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short 'CBDT') being : Circular No.400/29/2002 IT(B), dated 26.06.2006. 4.1. The said Circular has been issued by the CBDT, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 119(2)(a) of the 1961 Act. 4.2. The Chief Commissioner, by a reasoned order, rejected the prayer made by the respondent for waiver of interest for the following reasons, which are set out in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the order dated 04.01.2010 : ..... 5. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the written su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent upon the notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be treated at par with Advance-tax. The judgement relied upon by the AR in the case of Dr.Prannoy Roy and Another -vs- CIT and Another 254 ITR 755 (SC) is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case, as in the above judgement, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that interest would be payable in a case, where tax has not been deposited prior to the due date of filing of the income-tax return. The increase in the quantum of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act in this case is mainly due to the increase in the total income finally assessed as per the reassessment orders. The contention of the assessee that since he has paid the tax, no interest is chargeable in this case is not in conformity with the provisions of the IT Act. The other case laws relied upon by the AR, as mentioned above, are, therefore, found to be not applicable on the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, such as, detection of concealment of income by the Assessing Officer, non-submission of voluntary returns before the above detection and non-disclosure of true and correct income in the original returns are the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st ought to be waived under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the 1961 Act. 10.2. In other words, according to Mr.Jayakumar, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, ought not to be interfered with, as all that it does is to remand the matter to the Chief Commissioner for reconsideration of the case in the light of the Circular dated 26.06.2006. 10.3. In support of this submissions, learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the matter : N.Haridas Co. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2008) 296 ITR 246 (Mad.). 10.4. We must also indicate that Mr.Jayakumar has displayed exemplary fairness in the matter, by bringing to our notice a judgement of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the matter of : De Souza Hotels Private Limited V. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 253 CTR 0541, which takes a contra view. 10.5. This judgment of the Bombay High Court, evidently, takes the view that the discretion available to the Chief Commissioner for waiving interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C, is confined to the circumstances, adverted to, in paragraphs 2(a) to 2(d) of the said Circular. According to the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduction or waiver of interest. 11.6. Therefore, what emanates upon perusal of the Circular is that, unless the Assessee's case falls under the circumstances set out in paragraph 2(a) to 2(d) of the Circular dated 26.06.2006, which includes classes of cases and/or classes of incomes, the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax has no power to reduce or waive interest. 11.7. In the instant case, as indicated in the narration of facts above, though returns were filed for the subject periods, the assessment made in the usual and normal course, was reopened under Section 148 of the 1961 Act. The reassessed tax was paid only after the Revenue had passed the reassessment order. As noted above, the assessee, at that stage, as advised, it appears, has also paid interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the 1961 Act. 11.8. However, what emerges from the record, is also, that in so far as AY 2001-2002 is concerned, at the assessment stage itself, the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC qua the local sales was denied to the respondent. The matter was carried in appeal, which was sustained by CIT(A), in his order dated 27.08.2004. 11.9. Therefore, in a sense, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
