TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes order denying waiver of interest under Income Tax Act. Petitioner's hardship recognized.</h1> <h3>ANTO NITTO Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM & Others</h3> ANTO NITTO Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM & Others - [2013] 350 ITR 305 (Kerala) Issues:Challenge to order for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The petitioner challenged Ext.P3, an order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had requested the waiver of interest liability of Rs.8,54,476, which was rejected by Ext.P3 order. Subsequently, the entire interest liability was satisfied by appropriating amounts from the Corporation of Cochin due to the petitioner in a land acquisition proceeding. The reasons stated in Ext.P3 for rejection were the petitioner's alleged failure to prove the absence of any other business or source of income and lack of cooperation during recovery proceedings.In response to the first reason for rejection, the court noted that the respondents did not claim that the petitioner had any other business or income sources. It was also acknowledged that all of the petitioner's properties were under attachment, and the interest liability was cleared using compensation from the Corporation of Cochin. These facts supported the petitioner's claim of genuine hardship due to the lack of income sources. Regarding the lack of cooperation, the petitioner's defense was that non-compliance was due to a lack of funds, not willful default. The court found this defense plausible, given the circumstances of property attachment and subsequent clearance of liabilities through appropriation of compensation.The revenue contended that since the interest liability was discharged using compensation, there was no genuine hardship. However, the court disagreed, stating that the mere discharge of liability did not negate the existence of hardship, especially if all available funds were appropriated by the revenue. Consequently, the court quashed Ext.P3 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application within three months, with proper notice and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of.
TaxTMI 