2014 (12) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Act ). 2. The petitioner was assessed to tax on the file of the Income Tax Officer, Circle-II(4), Trichirappalli, for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The demand, including interest, under Section 220 (2) of the Act was certified by the Tax Recovery Officer and after collecting the entire arrears, the Tax Officer raised demand of Rs. 65,472/- representing the interest under Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter will be referred to as the Rules ). Against the said demand, the petitioner preferred an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220 (2) of the Act for waiver of the interest demanded. 3. In the said petition, the petitioner stated that more than 25 years, the petitioner was an as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the fact that the assessment years were 1977-78 and 1978-79 and summons were issued for the payment only in 2004, i.e., after a lapse of 27 years. 4. Though the petitioner did not receive any information on his request made, he paid the amount of Rs. 58,000/- with a view to purchase peace and settle the matter and avoid further litigation. After making payment of Rs. 58,000/-, which includes the tax and interest, the Tax Recovery Officer again raised a demand of Rs. 65,472/- claiming interest under Rule 5 of the Rules for the period from January 1990 till October 2005 and the demand shows arrears only as Rs. 24,835/- and interest (including the sum of Rs. 65,472/-) is Rs. 98,637/-. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the entire inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the petitioner and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda and Mr. Rajkumar Jhabath, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 8. The short issue, which falls for consideration, in these writ petitions, is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to waiver of interest, which has been levied by the Department for belated payment of the income tax dues. 9. Section 220 (2A) of the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable by the assessee, subject to the assessee satisfying the following three conditions:- (i) payment of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Officer and the petitioner was called upon to pay the Income Tax liability of Rs. 24,835/- for both assessment years and the interest under Section 220 (2) and Rule 5, up to January 1990, which was calculated as Rs. 33,165/-. The petitioner co-operated with the Department and did not contest the matter, but sought for information, such as copy of the assessment order, etc., This was not furnished, despite the petitioner's pointing out that the matter has been racked up, after a period of 27 years. Nevertheless, the petitioner paid Rs. 58,000/-. After having accepted the amount, the respondents demanded interest from January 1990 till the date of payment, i.e., October 2005 and stated that if the same is not paid, the respondent would i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the said decision, that the Chief Commissioner was not correct in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for waiver, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that 12 years have passed, the earliest assessment year being 1994-95 and the assessee had already paid tax, as per the reassessment, the Commissioner was directed to waive the interest. 15. In the light of the above referred to decisions, if the case on hand is examined, it is seen that when the Department, for the first time issued the demand on the petitioner in the year 2005, the petitioner did not contest the demand, though he submitted representations requesting for furnishing of details. Nevertheless, the petitioner paid ....