Wp(C)/33000/2005 Of Y.madhavan Nair 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. 33000 of 2005 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------- M.MADHAVAN NAIR, KRISHNA NIVAS, MARIKUNNU P.O. CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT(S) : ----------------------- 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. 2. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 4, DIVISION I, CALICUT. R BY ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, SC, R, BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) R, BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 33000 of 2005 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : APPENDIX P1:COPY OF THE PETITION DT 5/4/2001 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT P2:COPY OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(a) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 18/8/2005 IN FILE NO. CC.CHN/W.1/CLT.11/2001-02. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// BP P.A. TO JUDGE B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 33000 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2012. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, Shri. JoseJoseph. 2. During the year 1997-98, the petitioner has receivedenhanced compensation on land acquisition which includeinterest for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. Thepetitioner filed revised returns of income for the above periodson 10.03.1998. The 2[nd] respondent regularised the returns ofincome so filed by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on23.01.2001. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent levied interest underSections 234A & B of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed apetition dated 05.04.2001 before the 1[st] respondent seeking towaive the interest explaining the reason for non payment ofadvance tax. The 1[st] respondent by Ext.P2 order rejected theprayer for waiver of interest under Section 234B of the Act andallowed the waiver of interest levied under Section 234A of theAct. Hence this writ petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel relying on circular dated23.05.1996 issued by the CBDT contended that the ChiefCommissioner could not have waived the interest as the samedoes not come within the parameters of the circular. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe receipt of interest income was not in the contemplation ofthe petitioner at the time of filing the returns and the petitionerfiled revised returns and paid tax on the interest income soonafter receipt of it. Hence, according to the counsel, there is nodelay in paying tax on the interest income and the levy ofinterest is quite unwarranted. 4. I have considered the contentions of the parties. In myconsidered view, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case,it is a fit case to waive the interest levied and the firstrespondent has not exercised his discretion in a proper orjudicious manner. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed.The interest levied in this case under Section 234B shall standwaived. This writ petition is allowed. sd/-B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv