TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), because of shortfall in the payment of advance tax. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts, relevant for the present purpose are as follows: The petitioner, a public limited multi-unit company, is engaged in the business of manufacture of yarn, cement, etc. For the assessment year 1975-76, for which the relevant previous year ended on December 31, 1974, the assessee filed its return of income on October 1, 1975, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,88,63,416. The assessment for the said assessment year was completed on September 23, 1978. Since the Income-tax Officer was of the view that there was a default on the part of the assessee in paying the requisite amount of advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Monga, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.C. Pandey, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. It is strenuously urged by Mr. Monga that none of the authorities below has found the delay in completion of the assessment as attributable to the assessee and, therefore, the said authorities should have exercised their power under rule 40 and waived the interest charged under section 215 of the Act. It is asserted that there is not even an allegation against the assessee that he did not co-operate in the assessment proceedings, which resulted in the delay in completion of the assessment for the relevant assessment year. It is thus, submitted that the Income-tax Officer as well as the Commissioner have failed to exercise the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, read with rule 40 is undoubtedly quasi judicial and is coupled with a duty to consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant waiver or reduction of interest. He is under an obligation to objectively consider the circumstances and find out whether the applicant is entitled to the waiver or reduction. A mechanical consideration of the application defeats the very purpose and object of the legislation to grant relief to an assessee against the rigour of the provisions for charging interest under section 215, in the circumstances prescribed in rule 40. The language of rule 40(5), which is couched in wide terms, leaves little doubt that the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 215 are benevolent. Therefore, when an as....