Wp/22606/2017 Of Andhra Conductors Pvt. Ltd v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDARAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 22606 OF 2017 Between: AndhraConductorsPvt.Ltd.,1stFloor,No.58,PerumalMudiliStreet,Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600001. Rep. by its Director, Jugraj Jain, S/o. ChampaLai, Aged about 60 years. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada,[Andhra][ Pradesh.] 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kadapa Range, Kadapa,Andhra Pradesh.Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmay be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ,Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to quash the[order]of the1strespondent in F.No.CCIT/VJA/2017-18, dated 29.05.2017 and to direct therespondentsto waive theinterestof Rs.11,96,413/-pertainingtothe i.*' 'Assessment year 1983-84, imposed U/s.220(2) of the[Income][ Tax][ Act] 1961. 'v ’ ill LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 27829 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,[the][ High][ Court][ may][ be]pleased to hear the writ petition on out of turn basis[at][ an]early date,pending disposal of the Writ Petition. : SRI. VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, INCOME TAX The Court made the following Order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDARANDTHE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Writ Petition No.22606 of 2017 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar) When the case is called, there is no representation[on][ behalf][ of][ the]Pfttitinnpr 2.WehaveheardSriVijhayKumarPunna,learnedStandingCounsel for the Respondents, and perused the impugned order, dated29.05.2017.Counsel for the Respondents, and perused the impugned order, dated29.05.2017. 3.The instant dispute hasits origins in an assessment of the y^ar1984-85, which were subjected to proceedings under[Section][ 263][ of][ the]Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), and thereafter,[re-assessment]underSection143of theAct,which cametobecompletedon26.03.1990, which then was taken up before the C.l.T. Appeals as wellas before the I.T.A.T. and eventually attained finality[at][ the][ hands][ of][ the]I.T.A.T. and the assessment was completedat Rs.24,64,380/-ason29.09.1993.The dues including the interest were assessedandthesame came to be paid by the Petitioner..After a lapse[of][ more][ than][ 15]years,thePetitionerhaswoken-upandpreferredapetitionpn19.12.2009 seeking waiver of interest levied under Section 220(2) of theAct.Thus,it is seen that there has been delay of more than 15 years in1984-85, which were subjected to proceedings under[Section][ 263][ of][ the]Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), and thereafter,[re-assessment]underSection143of theAct,which cametobecompletedon26.03.1990, which then was taken up before the C.l.T. Appeals as wellas before the I.T.A.T. and eventually attained finality[at][ the][ hands][ of][ the]I.T.A.T. and the assessment was completedat Rs.24,64,380/-ason29.09.1993.The dues including the interest were assessedandthesame came to be paid by the Petitioner..After a lapse[of][ more][ than][ 15]years,thePetitionerhaswoken-upandpreferredapetitionpn19.12.2009 seeking waiver of interest levied under Section 220(2) of theAct.Thus,it is seen that there has been delay of more than 15 years in seekingfor waiver of theinterest, which cameto be rejected on thegroundthat the assessee do^s not comply with the demandsof theprovisions of Section 220(2) of the Act. The claim having been renderedstale on account of the inordinate delay, in our considered opinion, lacksmerit. seekingfor waiver of theinterest, which cameto be rejected on thegroundthat the assessee do^s not comply with the demandsof theprovisions of Section 220(2) of the Act. The claim having been renderedstale on account of the inordinate delay, in our considered opinion, lacksmerit. 4.The WritPetitionstands dismissed. Thedismissalof theWritPetition will not preclude the Writ petitioner from seeking review,if they»so desire.No costs.Petition will not preclude the Writ petitioner from seeking review,if they»so desire.No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pendingif any,[shall][ stand] closed. Sd/- M.SURYANADHA REDDYDEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate 2. One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, Advocate 3. Three CD copies KP HIGH COURT DATED: 15/07/2024 ORDERWP.No.22606 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS /a:1!VO11) SEP2c?'ia!^ Current Section •k.4