Wp(C)/29885/2007 Of K.sreedharan And Company v. Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 29885 of 2007 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.SREEDHARAN AND COMPANY THALIKAVU, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.SREEDHARAN. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (I), KANNUR. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. R, BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) R, BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE W.P.(C).NO.29885/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.7.2002 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF PETITION DATED 15.1.2003 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 10.3.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORETHE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER NO.CC.CHN/W1/KNR-21/2002-03 DATED 13.3.2007ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPYH OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION NO.400/234/95-IT(B)DATED 23.5.1996 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. EXT.P6: COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.400/129/2002-IT(B) DATED 26.6.2006 ISSUEDBY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //TRUE COPY//P.S. TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29885 OF 2007 (G) -----------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of December, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.In respect of the assessment for the year 1994-95, amounts werecharged towards interest under Sections 234A and 234B of theIncome Tax Act. The assessment of the petitioner for the said yearwas completed by demanding differential tax. Although the assesseecarried the matter in appeal, the proceedings culminated in an orderof the Appellate Tribunal confirming the demand of differential tax onthe assessee. In the consequential order that was passed by theAssessing Officer, interest under Sections 234A and 234B of theIncome Tax Act was also levied. Aggrieved by the levy of interestunder the said provisions, the petitioner preferred an applicationunder Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act which came to bedisposed by the 2[nd] respondent by Ext.P4 order whereby, the 2[nd]respondent waived the interest levied under Section 234A of theIncome Tax Act to an extent of [1]/3rd of the amount levied. In the writpetition, Ext.P4 order of the 2[nd] respondent is impugned inter alia on the ground that while passing the said order, the 2[nd] respondent hadnot validly exercised the discretion conferred on him under Section119(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. I have heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Jose Joseph, thelearned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Income TaxDepartment. the ground that while passing the said order, the 2[nd] respondent hadnot validly exercised the discretion conferred on him under Section119(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. I have heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Jose Joseph, thelearned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Income TaxDepartment. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case asalso the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the 2[nd]respondent Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, while passing Ext.P4order, was acting strictly in accordance with Ext.P6 instructionsissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the matter of grant ofwaiver of interest. While considering the case of the petitioner, andtaking note of the peculiar circumstances that were projected by himas a reason for the delay in remitting the tax amount, the 2[nd]respondent deemed it appropriate to grant a limited waiver to theextent of [1]/3rd of the interest levied under Section 234A of the IncomeTax Act. Ext.P4 order of the 2[nd] respondent cannot be said to be in any way vitiated by an error of law or an erroneous exercise ofdiscretion. In that view of the matter therefore, I see no reason tointerfere with the said order in the present writ petition. Resultantly,the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp