High Court Upholds Decision on Interest Charges under Income Tax Act

A. Kuberan Kartha of V.V. Arumugam Chettiar [HUF] Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

A. Kuberan Kartha of V.V. Arumugam Chettiar [HUF] Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues:
Challenge to order under Income Tax Act for waiver of interest charges.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged an order under Section 119 (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, seeking waiver of interest charges totaling Rs. 12.30 lakhs for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The petitioner's disclosure was not voluntary but made after detection during a search under Section 132. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 in 1991, leading to the Assessee filing a return in 1994. The conduct of the Assessee was crucial in determining eligibility for interest waiver under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act.

The judgment referred to the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajanikant & Sons, highlighting the Circular dated 26.06.2006, which empowered the Chief Commissioner and/or the Director General of Income Tax to reduce or waive interest under specified circumstances. The Circular mandated that no reduction or waiver of interest could be ordered unless the assessee filed a return of income for the relevant assessment year and paid the entire income tax due. The discretion to waive interest was limited to cases falling under specific circumstances outlined in the Circular.

The discretion granted to the respondent was clearly outlined in the Circular dated 26.06.2006, restricting the right to claim interest waiver to cases falling within the specified clauses. The judgment emphasized that the right to claim waiver of interest was not a statutory right but based on the Circular, requiring a strict interpretation. In this case, the petitioner did not meet the criteria specified in the Circular, leading to the respondent's decision not to waive the interest charges. The High Court upheld the respondent's decision, concluding that there was no error in the impugned order and dismissing the writ petition without costs.