Wp(C)/15941/2008 Of M.k.kamala v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 15941 of 2008 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- M.KAMALA, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.M.BANTAPPA CHANILO, "SHREE SADASIVA KRIPA", AMBARU, MANGALPADY, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT(S):-------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAHANA BUILDING, MELE CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 2. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX, KANNOCHUMACHAL, RANGE-1, KANNUR 670 006. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE MOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAXES SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXT.P1:COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 1ST RESPONDENT.THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS-NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15941 of 2008 -------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of October, 2012 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Income Tax Act. Itappears that for the assessment year 1984-1985, the petitionerdid not file return even in spite of a notice issued to her underSection 148. In such circumstances, assessment was completedunder Section 144 of the Act. She sought complete waiver ofthe interest demanded by an application under Section 220 (2A)of the Act. A copy of this application is Ext.P1. That applicationwas rejected by Ext.P2 order passed by the first respondent, therelevant portion of which, reads thus: “I have considered the argument of the learnedAdvocate. Section 220(2A) prescribed three conditionsto be satisfied. All the conditions taken together shouldbe satisfied and assessee must co-operate not only inassessment but also in recovery. In this case, obviously,the assessee has not co-operated in assessment becausereturn was not filed despite issue of notice under Section148. Therefore, assessee is not eligible for waiver ofinterest. The application is rejected. “ W.P.(C).No.15941/2008 It is challenging Ext.P2, the writ petition is filed. 2. By order dated 29.05.2008, this Court granted stay of Ext.P2 order on condition that the petitioner remitsRs.60,000/-. According to the petitioner, this condition hasbeen complied with. 3. Reading of Ext.P2 shows that the ground on which theapplication was rejected is that the petitioner did not co-operate in the assessment proceedings by filing a return evenin spite of a notice under Section 148 issued to her. Havingregard to the factual position that the petitioner did not file areturn, this finding in Ext.P2 order is unassailable. 4. However, fact remains that the petitioner is an 85year old lady and is an illiterate. In such circumstances, thefirst respondent could have considered her request atleast forreduction of the interest liability and in my view, facts of thiscase justify an order reducing the interest liability. Therefore,I direct that Ext.P2 will stand modified and the interest leviedshall stand reduced to Rs.60,000/-. It is directed thataccepting Rs.60,000/-, which the petitioner has already paid W.P.(C).No.15941/2008 : 3 : in pursuance to the interim order dated 29.05.2008 towards the interest liability, the demand will be treated as satisfied. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ln ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE