TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellery seized on 28/29th October, 1992, valued at Rs.4,49,255/-. To this extent, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. Keeping in view the delay and laches and to ensure immediate and timely return of jewellery suitable directions have been issued. 2. The petitioner No.1's residential and business premises were subjected to search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act on 28th October, 1992 and jewellery worth Rs. 14,79,052/- was seized vide panchnama of the same date. On 22nd February, 1993, an order under Section 132(5) of the Act was passed, prima facie determining the undeclared income of the petitioner No. 1 at Rs. 26,31,597/-. Accordingly an order was passed for retaining and not returning the aforesaid jewellery. 3. Petitioner No. 1 filed their return of income for the assessment year 1993-1994 on 14th January, 1994, declaring total income of Rs.11,73,390/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs.19,31,819/-, which on appeal was reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (Appeals) , for short] to Rs. 13,01,389/- vide order dated 31st March, 1997. The said order has attained finality. 4. Penalty of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epted by the Revenue that the following payments have been made by the petitioner No. 1 for the assessment year 1993-94. S.No. Date of Payment Amount 1. 20/08/1996 Rs.10,00,000/- 2. 10/09/1996 Rs.10,00,000/- 3. 17/03/1997 Rs.10,00,000/- 4. 05/03/1997 Rs.5,000/- 5. 06/03/1997 Rs. 19,550/- 6. 12/05/1998 Rs.25,000/- 7. 28/05/1998 Rs.25,000/- 8. 03/08/1998 Rs.30,000/- 9. 12/10/1998 Rs.70,000/- 10. 14/10/1998 Rs.8,512/- Total Rs.4,83,062/- 8. In additional to the aforesaid amount, as per the Revenue, the following amounts have also been paid as per the dates mentioned below:- S.No. Date of Payment Amount 1. 5/12/1994 Rs.50,000/- 2. 24/12/1994 Rs.50,000/- 3. 18/02/1995 Rs.1,00,000/- 4. 18/12/1995 Rs.25,000/- 9. Thus in all, the petitioner had made payment of Rs.7,08,062/- as on 14th October, 1998. Another amount of Rs. 3,74,330/- was paid on 7th August, 2003. 10. It appears that after the aforesaid payments were made, there was a long hiatus with the Revenue not taking any further steps to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee; and iii) the assessee has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him. Thus, all the above three conditions need to be satisfied in order to waive the said interest. As regards the condition mentioned at (i) above, the term 'genuine' as per the New Collins Concise English Dictionary is defined as under:- "Genuine" means not fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse)". The facts mentioned by the assessee in its submission are considered carefully. It has not mentioned anywhere the nature of hardship suffered by it so as to satisfy the conditions laid down in section 220(2A) for waiver of interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. On the other hand, it is clear that the assessee had already paid the said interest of Rs.7,04,175/- on 28.3.2007. Moreover, vide its submissions dated 28.4.2009, the assessee has no where mentioned that it had to face any genuine hardship while making the payment of interest u/s 220(2) of the IT Act. In view of the above, since the assessee firm does not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 220(2A) of the IT Act, 196....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 6th May, 2009 was passed. There has been delay and inaction on the part of the Revenue. (g) The total tax liability for the year in question was about Rs.5,83,023/-. The petitioner was liable to pay interest of Rs.3,16,986/- under Section 234A, 234B & 234C as on 28th July, 1997. The petitioner No. 1 had paid substantial amount of Rs.5,25,679/- by 28th July, 1997 and further amount of Rs.1,82,383/- (total Rs.7,08,062/-) by October, 1998. The total interest now being demanded and which has been paid under Section 220(2) is Rs.7,04,175/-. Thus in all the petitioner has paid tax and interest of more than Rs.14,10,000/- for the assessment year 1993-94. 16. The petitioner has also rightly drawn our attention to the decision in the case of B.M. Milani (supra) wherein it has been held as under:- "13. Section 220(2-A) of the Act contains a non obstante clause. It confers a jurisdiction upon the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable by an assessee thereunder, if he is satisfied that: "220. (2-A)(i) payment of such amount has caused or would cause genuine hardship to the assessee; (ii) default in the payment of the amount on w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t within the four corners of the statute. Indisputably, the Commissioner has the discretion not to accede to the request of the assessee, but that discretion must be judiciously exercised. He has to arrive at a satisfaction that the three conditions laid down therein have been fulfilled before passing an order waiving interest. 20. Compulsion to pay any unjust dues per se would cause hardship. But a question, however, would further arise as to whether the default in payment of the amount was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee." 17. The Chief Commissioner-VII, is also incorrect in rejecting the petition for waiver of interest under Section 220(2) on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 had nowhere mentioned that it was facing genuine hardship, whereas this was specifically claimed, highlighted and stated. The Chief Commissioner- VII is not right in rejecting the application for waiver of interest on the ground that interest of Rs.7,04,175/- was paid on 28th March, 2007, and therefore, the assessee's claim that it was facing hardship does not arise. Interest under Section 220 (2) was imposed because of the delay in payment. Genuineness of the hardship durin....