Wp/5634/2006 Of A.h.n. Venkata Rao v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.5634 OF 2006Dated 20th September, 2007 Between: A.H.N.Venkata Rao …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Income tax-I And three others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NO.5634 OF 2006 O R D E R(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki): Counter has been filed and we have heard learned counsel forthe parties. By this writ petition, an order dated 10-01-2006 passed by thefirst respondent refusing to waive interest on tax has been challenged.The application for waiver of interest was filed by the petitioner beforethe first respondent in terms of Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act”). Section 220(2A) of the Act lays down- “(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Chief Commissioner or Commissionermay reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payableby an assessee under the said sub-section if he is satisfiedthat- (i)payment of such amount has caused or would causegenuine hardship to the assessee;genuine hardship to the assessee; (ii)default in the payment of the amount onwhich interest has been paid or was payableunder the said sub-section was due tocircumstances beyond the control of theassessee; andwhich interest has been paid or was payableunder the said sub-section was due tocircumstances beyond the control of theassessee; and (iii)the assessee has co-operated in any inquiryrelating to the assessment or any proceedingfor the recovery of any amount due from him.relating to the assessment or any proceedingfor the recovery of any amount due from him. The Commissioner of Income Tax, in this case, has found thatnone of the conditions was present to exercise the power underSection 220 (2A) of the Act. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the tax, whichwas due from the petitioner for the year 1986-87, was ultimately paid in2006. The only contention raised by the petitioner was that he wascooperative with the assessment and was not aware that the tax had tobe paid. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that against the assessmentorders, appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). Finally appeals were also filed before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) which came to be disposed of by an ex parte order and the Tribunal in its order remarked- “though notice was issued and the appeals were posted forhearing on as may as 13 occasions the assessee did notattend. The appeals were therefore heard ex parte…………………The appeals are dismissed”. The assessee had also filed a petition under Section 273A ofthe Act seeking waiver of interest charged under Section 139(8) and271 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax and theCommissioner of Income Tax remarked- “It is also seen from the records that the assessee has notcooperated with the department in the payment of taxes and the installment facility granted was not availed of…” This is not disputed by the petitioner that at one time he hadalso been granted the facility to pay the tax by way of installments,which he had not done. In this view of the matter, we do not think theorder of the Commissioner of Income-Tax-I - the first respondent needsany interference by us. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ Bilal Nazki,J Dated 20[th] September, 2007 ____________________________ Ramesh Ranganathan,J vrn