T.jayachandran v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.07.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGANANAMW.P.No.24694 of 2004 T.Jayachandran .. Petitioner Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai – 600 034. .. Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarifiedmandamus to call for the records of the respondent in hisproceedings bearing No.CCA:105(23)/III/97-98 dated 21.10.2000and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent togrant waiver of interest levied under Section 234(B) and (C) ofthe Income Tax, 1961 inrespect of the Assessment Years 1991-92to 1994-95. For Petitioner..Mr.P.S.Raman Senior Counsel for Mr.C.SeethapathyFor Respondents ..Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Standing Counsel O R D E R HeardMr.P.S.Raman,learnedSeniorCounselforMr.C.Seethapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner andMr.J.Naranayaswamy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by thefirst respondent - the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai, dated 21.10.2000, insofar as it restricts the waiver ofinterest levied under Section 234(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961to 50% for the four assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94,1994-95. With regard to the waiver application for interestunder Section 234(C) of the said Act, the same was rejected for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ all the four assessment years.3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner wouldpoint out that as of now, the Court need not adjudicate as towhether the denial of 50% of the waiver of interest wasjustified or not, though the entire findings recorded by theChief Commissioner in the impugned order are fully in favour ofthe petitioner accepting their case, since there are subsequentdevelopments in the matter pertaining to the assessments for theyears 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. In respect of theassessments for these three years, the petitioner had approachedthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals and allthose appeals being rejected, the petitioner filed in the taxcase appeals in T.C.A.Nos.366 to 368 of 2015 before the DivisionBench of this Court and the Division Bench, by judgment dated29.10.2012, answered the four questions, which were framed forconsideration in favour of the petitioner assessee and againstthe Revenue. 4. Therefore, it is submitted that the matter may beremitted back to the Chief Commissioner to decide as to thepetitioner's eligibility for the waiver of the balance 50% ofthe interest for three assessment years, which were the subjectmatter of T.C.A.Nos.366 to 368 of 2005 viz., 1991-92 to 1993-94as well as for assessment year 1994-95. 5. Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent pointed out that as against the judgment of theDivision Bench dated 29.10.2012, the Revenue has preferred anappeal to the Supreme Court. But, nevertheless the matter canbe remanded to the Chief Commissioner for a fresh consideration. 6. There may not be any difficulty in sending back thematter to the Chief Commissioner for re-consideration. But, byvirtue of such direction, the Revenue can not try to negate theimpugned order in so far as it grants a relief to the assesseei.e with regard to 50% waiver of interest under Section 234(B)of the Act for the four assessment years. 5. Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent pointed out that as against the judgment of theDivision Bench dated 29.10.2012, the Revenue has preferred anappeal to the Supreme Court. But, nevertheless the matter canbe remanded to the Chief Commissioner for a fresh consideration. 6. There may not be any difficulty in sending back thematter to the Chief Commissioner for re-consideration. But, byvirtue of such direction, the Revenue can not try to negate theimpugned order in so far as it grants a relief to the assesseei.e with regard to 50% waiver of interest under Section 234(B)of the Act for the four assessment years. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue fairlystates that that is not the intent or purport of the Revenue, asthe Revenue has not questioned the order passed by the ChiefCommissioner granting 50% waiver of the interest under Section234 (B) of the said Act and such waiver shall remain intact andthat the remand can be restricted only for the remaining 50%,that too, in the light of the subsequent development that thetax case appeals were allowed in favour of assessee by theDivision Bench. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowedin so far as it relates to refusal to grant 100% waiver of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest under Section 234(B) of the said Act and the respondentis directed to take a fresh decision on merits and in accordancewith law and while doing so, shall also examine the judgment ofthe Division Bench in T.C.A.Nos.366 to 368 of 2005 dated29.10.2012. 9. With regard to the rejection of the entire claim of thewaiver of interest under Section 234(C) of the said Act, therespondent shall take a fresh decision in the matter whiledeciding the issue with regard to 50% waiver of the interestunder Section 234(B) of the said. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ATToThe Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai – 600 034. +1cc to MR.C.Seethapathy, Advocate SR.No.50042+1cc to MR.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR.No.50236 W.P.No.24694 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/