9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.The petitioner had filed petitions under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Circular F-No. 400/129/2002-IT (B) dated 26.06.2006 for waiver of interest before the 1st respondent Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95 and assessment years 2002- 03 and 2004-2005. 4.By the impugned orders, the 1st respondent chief Commissioner of Income Tax has rejected the prayer for waiver of interest with the following observations in the respective impugned order for the assessment year 2004-05 reads as under:- * 9.0 Waiver of interest is to be seen as per the conditions laid down in Circular in F No.400/129/2002-IT(B) dated 26/6/2006. From the file it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars 2002-03 and 2004-05, the returns were processed and assessments were completed under Section 143 (3) by re-computing the relief under Section 80 HHC by partially granting refund of total income. 7.Since there was a delay in payment of advance Income Tax, the petitioner was called upon to pay interest under section 234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Details of the interest demanded are detailed below:- A.Y Admitted income in return Assessed income after reworking under 80HCC Interests U/s. 234A U/s. 234B U/s. 234C 1992-93 Nil 5,85,700 7,880 1,61,540 - 1993-94 4,04,790 5,53,220 34,692 1,02,584 7,344 1994-95 2,40,110 4,14,150 5,800 1,23,480 2,540 2002-03 Nil - - 59,235 - 2004-05 Ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner further relies on the decision of the court in R.Mani vs Chief Inspector of Income Tax, 2017 SCC OnLine 15884 and the decision of the court in N.Haridas and Co. vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 2007 SCC OnLine 1061. 11.Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the income tax department Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap submits that the impugned orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax were well reasoned and require no interference under Article 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12.He submits that the waiver can be granted only where any income was not chargeable to income tax in the case of an assessee on the basis of an order passed by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assesee was assessable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly. Normally, these cannot be any addition or substitution by the authority concerned while entertaining the application for waiver of interest under Section 234 A, B or C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, during the Assessment Years 1992-93 to 1994-95 there were no decisions of this court, the respondent was justified in not granting waiver of interest as per the above circular. 15.However, it is noticed that the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd cited supra was pronounced on 24.07.2000. The said decision appears to have emanated from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai where the assessee had succeeded. 16.The Bombay High Court upheld the order of the Income Tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id circular. 21.At the same time, the circular being a beneficial circular, it can be construed liberally in appropriate case as the intention of the circular was to grant waiver where ever there were orders of the Courts/Tribunal which allowed an assessee to entertain a bonafide view to not to pay tax or claim deduction as Income tax is to be administered uniformly all over the Country. 22.If indeed there were decisions of the Tribunals and/or of High Court though not necessarily of the jurisdictional Tribunal/High Court, the petitioner can be stated to have entertained a bonafide view to not to pay tax on such turnover. The petitioner has not shown any decision of the Tribunal or High Court at the time of filing return. 23.If however t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
