AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd quash the same insofar as it seeks to deny waiver of interest under section 158 BFA (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Block Period 1986-87 to 1996-97 and to direct the first respondent to waive interest levied under Section 158 BFA (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) W.P.No.32650 filed by the petitioner L.Manak Sharma for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in C.No. 4005/(137)/CCIT-IV/2003-4 dated 6.6.07 and quash the same insofar as it seeks to deny waiver of interest under section 158 BFA (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Block Period 1986-87 to 1996-97 and to direct the first respondent to waive interest levied under Section 158 BFA (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. Both the assessments were completed on 29.01.1999 under Section 158 BC read with Section 143(3) on 60% of total undisclosed income of Rs. 7,91,005/-in W.P.No.32649 of 2007 and Rs. 8,57,195/- in W.P.No.32650 of 2007 in the hands of the respective petitioners. 10. According to the respondents, the last communication that was addressed by the petitioners were on 11.03.98 for furnishing the documents and thereafter the documents have been served immediately though the petitioner would state that the documents were furnished only the month of July 1998 and therefore there was bonafide delay in filing the returns. There is no clarity as to when the copies of seized documents were served. Copies of the notice dated 12.05.1997 and 15.05.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the income tax department. 17.A sum of Rs. 94,920/- was levied as interest whereas against the petitioner viz., L.Manak Chand Sharma in W.P.No.32649 of 2007 and a sum of Rs. 1,13,677/- was levied as interest against the petitioner viz., L Poonam Chand in W.P.No.32650 of 2007 by the 2nd respondent. 18. It is the case of the petitioners that there was no delay on their part in filing the returns as the documents were only furnished during the month of July 1998 and that on 12.01.1999 returns were filed which culminated in Block Assessment on 29.01.1999 and therefore there was no justification in imposing interest on them. 19. Section 158 BFA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplates levy of simple interest at the specified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 158 BFA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore was entitled for waiver of interest. 21. The petitioner has drawn any attention to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Smt. Sire Kanwar Bai (2011) 330 ITR 0134 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.Balan versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(2018) 93 Tax man.com 452. 22. Countering the argument, the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the petitioners are guilty of delay in filing the returns that are contemplated under section 158 BC (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore there is no basis on which the waiver interest can be granted. 23. The learned counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for 10 months delay againt the petitioner in W.P.No.32649 of 2007 and for 19 months delay against the petitioner in W.P.No.32650 of 2007 as the returns were filed only on 12.01.1999. 28. It is under these circumstances the petitioners filed an application for waiver of interest. 29. In the case of petitioner in W.P.No.32649 of 2007, an amount of Rs. 25,397/- was directed to be refunded in the block assessment. Excess amount by the said petitioner was adjusted against the balance due from the petitioner in W.P.No.32650 of 2007. 30.By the impugned order, both the writ petitioners have been asked to pay interest from April 1998 to January 1999 and accordingly, both the cases have been remanded back to the 2nd respondent for quantific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible. Admittedly, the delay in not filing the return after the notice dated 20.07.1998 is not attributable to the assessee. No where, the Revenue has taken a stand that the request made by the assessee for supply of seized documents was either unreasonable or uncalled for. Later, the department has furnished the photostat copies of the seized documents. Therefore, the period during which the assessee was waiting for the copies of the documents, which were seized, has to be necessarily excluded and if this is excluded, the period between 1998 to 22.06.1999 has to be necessarily excluded. This reasoning is supported by the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in (2014) 363 ITR 410 [Commissioner of Income Tax an....