Dated This The 28Th Day Of November, 2007 v. Savoy Enterprises

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 OP.No. 4946 of 2000(L) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.J.CHACKO,NEROTH HOUSE,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SC FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.25.10.93 OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DT.25.6.1999. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.4946 of 2000.................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of November, 2007. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing forthe respondents. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order whereunder theCommissioner has granted only partial waiver of interest levied underSection 139(8) and Section 215 of the Income Tax Act for the assessmentyears 1983-84 and 1984-85. The petitioner's case is that returns were filedunder amnesty scheme and he is entitled to complete waiver of interest asagainst partial waiver granted by the Commissioner. Standing Counselsubmitted that petitioner filed original return on 29.10.1985 i.e. prior tointroduction of amnesty scheme and such return disclose taxable income.However, petitioner filed a return on 31.3.1986 under the amnesty schemeunder which an additional income of Rs.1,25,000/- was disclosed. It is seenfrom the Commissioner's order that petitioner is granted full waiver ofinterest levied under the above two Sections for the additional incomereturned in the return filed under amnesty scheme. Even though counselfor the petitioner cited decision of the Calcutta High Court inCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SAVOY ENTERPRISES LIMITED (211 ITR 192) and contended that the said decision applies topetitioner's case, I am unable to find anything in favour of the petitioner inthe said decision. The court in that case held that amnesty benefit shouldbe available to old assessees also. Original return filed by the assessee inthat case was a loss return and therefore, the entire income assessed is basedon return filed under the amnesty scheme. However, in this case prior tothe introduction of amnesty scheme petitioner had filed regular return,though with delay, declaring taxable income and all consequences wouldhave followed had the petitioner not filed any return under the amnestyscheme. Therefore, benefit is available under the amnesty scheme onlywith reference to additional income returned. I find the Commissioner hascompletely waived interest on the additional income returned and therefore,petitioner was granted full amnesty benefit. The O.P. is devoid of any meritand is dismissed. pms C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge