Wp(C)/12819/2011 Of Shahina Babu v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12819 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAHINA BABU,W/O.LATE K.V.NAUSHAD ALI BABU,A/104-BHARATHI-I APARTMENTS,SHERLY RAJAN ROAD,NEAR RISWI COLLEGE,BANDRA,WEST MUMBAI, PIN-400050. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDINGS,I.S.PRESS ROAD,COCHIN-682018. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I,CR BUILDINGS,I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682018. ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 12819 OF 2011------------------------ Dated this the 6[th] day of May, 2011JUDGMENT The petitioner is the wife of deceased assessee Noushad AliBabu, who was the Chief Executive of the Cochin Branch ofM/s.Akbar Travels owned by his brother. The husband of thepetitioner committed suicide on 6/12/2000. There was a searchin the business premises of Akbar Travels at Mumbai and Cochin.A total amount of Rs.40,64,650/- was assessed as tax as perorder dated 19/4/2001. The petitioner filed appeal before theAppellate Authority and as per the appellate order, the taxpayable by the petitioner was reduced and fixed atRs.11,19,629/-. Both the assessee and the Revenue had filedappeals against the said order before the Income Tax Tribunal,Cochin and both appeals were dismissed. According to thepetitioner, she has paid the entire amount of tax assessed.However, an amount of Rs.12,13,421/- is demanded by the 3[rd]respondent as interest. 2. The petitioner contends that she is entitled to claim WPC NO. 12819/2011 waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act.The petitioner has, therefore, submitted Ext.P3 petition seekingwaiver of interest on 23/4/2010. Thereafter, she has alsosubmitted a reminder on 4/1/2011, which is marked as Ext.P4.However, in spite of the above, no orders have been passed onExt.P4 till date. In the above circumstances, the AssessingAuthority has issued Ext.P6 intimating her that the amountdemanded would be recovered by initiating revenue recoveryproceedings. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challengingExt.P6. 3. Sri.Jose Joseph learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe respondents submits on instructions that the entire amount oftax due has been paid by the petitioner. But, her liability to payinterest does not disappear with the payment of the tax. TheRevenue is certainly entitled to recover the interest portion alsoby initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner.The learned standing counsel also points out that the petitioneris a person who earns a substantial income and therefore iscapable of paying the amount demanded. For the abovereason, it is contended that the present proceedings against her WPC NO. 12819/2011 is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well asthe learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. WPC NO. 12819/2011 is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well asthe learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. Admittedly Ext.P3 petition filed seeking waiver ofinterest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act is pendingbefore the first respondent since 23/4/2010. However, no orderhas been passed thereon. I notice that more than a year haslapsed since the filing of that petition. Ext.P3 has been followedup with a reminder Ext.P4 dated 4/1/2011. However, in spite ofthe above, no orders have been passed by the first respondentso far. In the above circumstances, it is highly improper for theAuthorities to have issued proceedings in the nature of Ext.P6seeking recovery of the amount demanded through revenuerevenue recovery proceedings. The first respondent should havepassed final orders on Ext.P3 before proceeding to recover theinterest demanded. If the petitioner is entitled to waiver of theinterest, either of a portion of the amount claimed or of theentire interest, proceedings in the nature of Ext.P6 wouldcertainly be unnecessary. WPC NO. 12819/2011 In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed ofdirecting the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 petition filed bythe petitioner under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Actseeking waiver of interest as expeditiously as possible, inaccordance with law. Until final orders are passed on Ext.P3,further action based on the proceedings under Ext.P6 torecover the amount demanded therein shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. dpk