Wp(C)/25773/2005 Of S.sunitha v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 WP(C).No. 25773 of 2005 (R) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMT. S.SUNITHA, D/O.DR.M.SIVATHANU PILLAI, SAROVAR, VENNAKKARA PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COHIN. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX : 2 : PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(a) OFTHEINCOMETAXACT,1961INF.NO.CC.CHN/W1/CLT.57/2000-01 DATED 11.05.2005OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THEINCOMETAXACT,1961INF.NO.CC.CHN/W1/CLT.57/2000-01 DATED 11.05.2005OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// rv P.A. TO JUDGE B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 25773 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2012. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, Shri. Jose Joseph. 2. The petitioner's husband who was working in the SalemSteel Plant, died in a road accident at Chennai on 14.11.1992.On 30.03.1999, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennaiawarded compensation and interest to the petitioner and thepetitioner received the compensation along with interest inFebruary, 2000. Even though the petitioner has paid the tax oninterest portion of the award received by her, she has beendirected to pay interest on the tax payable for delayed paymentof income tax. The petitioner had paid the income tax on31.03.2000 by filing a revised return. But the authorities havelevied `82,000/- as interest. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department submits that the Commissioner has beenempowered under circular dated 23.05.1996 issued by the CBDTto waive interest only in the classes of cases mentioned therein and the petitioner's case does not come within the parameters ofthe circular. 4. In this case interest under Section 234A and 234B of theIncome Tax Act was levied for non-payment of advance tax onthe interest income received after the due date for filing returnsfor the years involved. The counsel for the petitioner pointed outthat the advance tax on this case could not be paid since thereceipt of any interest income was uncertain and unanticipatedand not in the contemplation of the petitioner at the time of filingthe returns. He also submitted that the petitioner filed revisedreturns and paid the tax on the interest income soon afterreceipt of it and under these circumstances, it cannot beproceeded as if the petitioner failed to pay advance tax. Thecounsel further submitted that, at any rate, the 2[nd] respondentshould have waived the interest levied in this case in exercise ofthe discretion conferred on him under the CBDT Notificationdated 23.05.1996 in view of the peculiar facts obtained in thiscase. 5. I have considered the contentions. Having regard to thepeculiar facts obtained in this case, I am of the view that this is afit case to waive the interest levied under Section 234A and 234B of the Act and the 2[nd] respondent failed to exercise thediscretion conferred on them under the CBDT Notification dated23.05. 1996 in a proper and judicious manner. 5. I have considered the contentions. Having regard to thepeculiar facts obtained in this case, I am of the view that this is afit case to waive the interest levied under Section 234A and 234B of the Act and the 2[nd] respondent failed to exercise thediscretion conferred on them under the CBDT Notification dated23.05. 1996 in a proper and judicious manner. 6. In my considered view, there is no delay in payment oftax on the interest income, since the petitioner filed revisedreturns and paid tax immediately after receipt of the interestincome. Accordingly, the interest demanded under Sections234A and 234B of the Act is waived and the impugned order isquashed. This writ petition is allowed as above. rv sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.