Op/25976/1999 Of M/S.cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 25976 of 1999(P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.V.J. KURIAN,GCDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN – 682 031. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COMPANY CIRCLE-I, DIVISION-I,ERNAKULAM.COMPANY CIRCLE-I, DIVISION-I,ERNAKULAM. 2.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CR BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD,COCHIN – 18.CR BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD,COCHIN – 18. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.25976/1999 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1:COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 1996-97 DTD. 8.10.97. EXT. P2:COPY OF REVISION PETITION BEFORE R2 FOR WAIVER OF INTEREST DTD.17.12.97.INTEREST DTD.17.12.97. EXT. P3:COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY CCIT, COCHIN DTD. 16.3.99. EXT. P4:COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R2 DTD. 19.12.00. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- O.P. No.25976 OF 1999 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 orderpassed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in a revisionpetition filed by the petitioner. The assessment year is 1996-97.The issue was considered in the light of the application for waiverof interest charged under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. 2. In the return of income filed for the above year, 'nil'income was declared. When the case was taken up for scrutiny,it was noticed that during the year the company had receivedincome amounting to Rs.2,34,16,815/- by way of interest onterm deposits from banks. In the return filed by the assessee, itwas claimed that the interest earned is on borrowed funds and isnot assessable to tax. Ext.P1 is the copy of the assessment orderwhich was challenged in the revision petition. Finally it was heldin Ext.P3 that the assessee has not made out a case for waiver ofinterest charged under Section 234B and the revision petition O.P. No.25976/99 was dismissed. 3. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, Ext.P4 order relating to the assessment year 1997-98 has been produced.Therein, the entire interest levied under Section 234B and C hasbeen waived. It is pointed out by the Standing Counsel for therespondents that during the year 1996-97, the decision of thisCourt in Collis Lines (P) Ltd.vs.ITO, A-Ward, CompaniesCircle, Ernakulam(135 ITR 390) (Kerala) was holding the field.It is true that later in re:CITvs.Autokast Ltd.(138 CTR 75), adifferent view was taken which was in favour of the assessee.But the decision of this Court in Collis Lines case (supra) wasupheld by the Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals andFertilizers Ltd.vs.CIT (227 ITR 172)(SC). 4. Evidently, in Ext.P3, the view taken is that during therelevant assessment year, the view taken by this Court in CollisLines (Pvt) Ltd's case (supra) was holding the field and hence, itcannot help the petitioner herein. All the aspects have beenconsidered by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in Ext.P3order. 5. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court as noticedabove which favoured the assessment, it cannot be said that theview taken in Ext.P3 is wrong. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is nomore. As directed by this Court in the order dated 24.03.2010,notice was issued to the petitioner and going by the endorsementdated 27.05.2011, notice was served and it is noted that serviceis complete. But, there was no appearance for the petitioner. 4. Evidently, in Ext.P3, the view taken is that during therelevant assessment year, the view taken by this Court in CollisLines (Pvt) Ltd's case (supra) was holding the field and hence, itcannot help the petitioner herein. All the aspects have beenconsidered by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in Ext.P3order. 5. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court as noticedabove which favoured the assessment, it cannot be said that theview taken in Ext.P3 is wrong. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is nomore. As directed by this Court in the order dated 24.03.2010,notice was issued to the petitioner and going by the endorsementdated 27.05.2011, notice was served and it is noted that serviceis complete. But, there was no appearance for the petitioner. In the light of the view I have taken, the petitioner cannotsucceed in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition isdismissed. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJUDGE smp