Wp(C)/10577/2021 Of Ambady Krishna Menon v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF MAY 2021 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 10577OF 2021 PETITIONER: 0 AMBADY KRISHNA MENON AGED 79 YEARS S/O. RAMAN MENON, AMBADY REGREAT, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682020. BY ADVS. P.SATHISAN SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1, RANGE - 1, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 4 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI - 400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS EX-OFFICIO MEMBER SECRETARY. 5 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 6 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. SC NAVNEETH N NATH FOR JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the 1[st] respond-ent to consider Ext.P12 request made by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P7 scheme after hearing the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P8 application preferred by the peti-tioner under Ext.P7 scheme has been rejected by Ext.P9, stating that the interest pending in respect of the petitioner does not qualify as disputed interest as per Section 2(1)(h) of the DTVSV Act, 2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the peti-tioner has preferred a writ petition against the order rejecting the re-quest for waiver of interest and that the interest therefore comes within the ambit of disputed interest in terms of the scheme. It is fur-ther submitted that Ext.P12 request made by the petitioner is liable to be considered after hearing the petitioner as well. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax would vehe- mently contend that Section 2 (1)(h) of the Act specifically provides that it is only in cases where a statutory appeal has been preferred against the original order under Section 143 or 147 that the interest would fall within the ambit of disputed interest and that the prefer- ring of a writ petition by the petitioner against an order rejecting the request for waiver of interest would not qualify in terms of the scheme. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the re-opinion that since the petitioner has already approached the 1[st]spondent with Ext.P12, the same can be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the 1[st] respondent. There will, according-ly, be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to put the petitioner on notice on Ext.P12 and to conduct a hearing through video conferencing and pass orders within a week on Ext.P12. Orders shall be passed as ex-peditiously as possible, at any rate, within the period of one week as stated above. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ANNEXURE/EXHIBITS APPENDIX