Of Income-Tax v. C.n.ramachandran Nair Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 1540 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10312/2009 Dated 19/05/2010 .................... APPELLANT: -------------- DR. ATTUKAL RADHAKRISHNAN, REMA JYOTHISHALAYAM, MANAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEVI KRIPA BUILDING, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. 3. THE POST MASTER, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009. 4. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009. R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1540 of 2010 ....................................................................Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether appellant is liable to pay interestunder Section 158BFA of the Income Tax Act. Appellant's case asstated by counsel is that he had gone for settlement and the SettlementCommission ordered settlement vide Ext.P4 order. However, whileissuing consequential order the Assessing Officer demanded interestwhich is not tenable is appellant's contention. The learned SingleJudge rejected the claim and against this judgment Writ Appeal is filed. 2. The Supreme Court has vide judgment in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. ANJUM M.H. GHASWALA reported in(2001) 252 ITR 1 held that Settlement Commission has no authority towaive interest. However, counsel for the appellant pointed out theobservation in the very same judgment wherein the Commissioner orChief Commissioner as the case may be is permitted by the Boardthrough it's Circular to reduce or waive interest. Standing Counsel submitted that maintainability of the application for waiver should notbe considered by this court because the same does not arise from theimpugned order confirmed by the learned Single Judge. Since theSettlement Commission has no power to reduce or waive interest andthey have in fact not done it in Ext.P4 order, it is for the appellant tomove for waiver before the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, ifthey have the authority under the Board's Circular. Writ Appeal isdismissed with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge K.SURENDRA MOHANJudge pms