Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1998 (9) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e relates, the petitioner filed its return of income on August 27, 1987, declaring a total income of Rs. 11,81,96,860. On February 9, 1990, a revised return was filed declaring an income of Rs. 11,21,56,700. According to the petitioner, the income-tax payable on the returned income had been paid before filing the return and no income-tax remained outstanding. The assessment was completed on March 5, 1990, as per which the income-tax liability of the petitioner was determined at Rs. 20,57,94,530 and it was asked to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,47,49,865 including interest of Rs. 1,25,79,096 under section 215 of the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the assessment order and also filed an application under section 220(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Ranchi, for stay of realisation of the demand till disposal of the appeal. However, on March 5, 1990, a demand notice was mechanically issued by him for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,47,49,865. According to the petitioner, the amount could not be paid on account of resource constraints which it was facing at the relevant time. Besides, it had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;    ------------                                                                         3,82,11,239"                                                                         ------------ It would not be out of place to mention that according to the petitioner, the aforesaid payment of Rs. 1,04,72,382 was made on March 25, 1991, after taking loan from the bank in view of the persisting resource constraints for the past three years. On April 11, 1991, the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er section 220(2) are bound to be different. There may be genuine cases where the assessee under a bona fide belief as to his income-tax liability has paid less advance tax on the basis of his own estimate and in the facts of the particular case, therefore, he may be allowed waiver or reduction. In the case of interest chargeable under section 220(2), however, the income-tax liability of the assessee already stands determined. He cannot take the plea of bona fide belief as in the case of interest chargeable under section 215. None the less interest chargeable under section 220(2) of the Act can also be waived or reduced but only in the circumstances mentioned in section 220(2A) which reads as follows : "(2A). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (2), the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable by an assessee under the said sub-section if he is satisfied that--- (i) payment of such amount has caused or would cause genuine hardship to the assessee ; (ii) default in the payment of the amount on which interest has been paid or was payable under the said sub-section was due to circumstances beyond the control of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner of Income-tax, and they do not create any fetter on the power of this court in passing an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the particular case and on a ground not mentioned therein, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Mr. Moitra was at pains to submit that while the Department charges interest in each case of delayed payment of the tax, it does not allow refunds and adjustments with corresponding promptness. He referred to several instances where the benefit of refund was allowed belatedly by adjusting the amount against the tax liability of earlier periods. For example, it was stated, the petitioner was allowed refund of Rs. 1,75,00,770 for the assessment year 1989-90 but the same was adjusted only on March 21, 1991, against the liability for the assessment year 1977-78. Mr. Moitra also stated that the petitioner has been regularly paying advance tax, sometimes in excess of the tax payable but the Department has been slow in giving the benefit of refund/adjustment. According to counsel, this amounts to failure on the part of the departmental authorities to perform their statutory duties in a proper and judicious manner. Without going into th....