Op/17712/2002 Of M/S.sathyapalan & Co v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 17712 of 2002(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. SATHYAPALAN & CO., GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, EDAKKIDAM, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, S.SATHEESH. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DISMISSED: 1.2.2008SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1993-94. P2: .DO.1994-95. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR WAIVER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR1993-94. P4: .DO.1994-95. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION U/S.119(2)(A) ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for therespondent. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order whereunder theChief Commissioner has declined petitioner's application for waiver ofinterest payable under Section 234B and 234C for the assessment years1993-94 and 1994-95. I do not find any ground to interfere with theimpugned order because the Chief Commissioner has pointed out thatpetitioner has not satisfied any of the conditions for waiver referred to inCircular issued under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Moreover,the Commissioner noticed that assessee made substantial investment inimmovable property and in the construction of hospital building during theprevious years which go to show that assessee had liquidity to pay advancetax. In the circumstances, O.P. is dismissed as devoid of any merit. pms C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge