2025 (1) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....application for waiver of interest under Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act"). 4. Mr Pardiwala, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that on 26 July 2007, after a search, the Petitioner's movable assets like gold bars, jewellery, investments and cash aggregating to Rs.71,35,730/- were seized. As the proceedings for assessment ended on 8 March 2010, the Petitioner requested the Assessing Officer ("AO") to encash the seized investments and adjust the proceeds towards the tax demand. On 20 September 2013, Petitioner reiterated this request. This time, the Petitioner also requested the AO to sell the gold and other jewellery that had been seized. 5. Mr Pardiwala submitted that the above request was repeatedly reiterated. However, the AO did not take steps to dispose of the seized assets and adjust them against the tax demands. He pointed out that as a result, the Petitioner suffered losses on account of interest, etc. He submitted that the Petitioner, a senior citizen, had to sell his property to settle the tax demand. He also submitted that the Petitioner was suffering from some ailments. 6. Mr Pardiwala submitted that on 4 February 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wala relied on Chander Prakash Jain vs Commissioner of Income-Tax [2015] 62 taxmann.com 37 (Allahabad) to submit that where Fixed Deposit Receipts, Vikas Patras seized from an assessee were not encashed despite a request from the assessee, interest was ordered to be paid on the same. He submitted that though the Petitioner is not requesting any interest, this factor of the department retaining the investments and not encashing them despite the Petitioner's request should be considered for grant of waiver. 12. For all the above reasons, Mr Pardiwala submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and that the Petitioner's application for waiver should be allowed. 13. Mr Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents, defended the impugned order based on its reasoning. He submitted that the scope of judicial review in such matters is minimal. The findings of fact recorded in the impugned order were borne out from the material on record, and there was no case for granting any waiver. 14. Mr Suresh Kumar submitted that the Petitioner at one stage requested for the sale of the gold but soon thereafter requested that the sale be kept in abeyance. He pointed out ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aived. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all these conditions must be satisfied in B. M. Malani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2008) 10 SCC 617. 19. The first condition is that payment of such an amount would cause genuine hardship to the assessee. In this regard, the Chief Commissioner has recorded findings of fact, and we are satisfied that no case of perversity is made out to interfere with the findings so recorded. 20. The Petitioner, in this case, was requested to produce his balance sheet to ascertain the Petitioner's financial position. However, the Petitioner claimed that he was not required to prepare any balance sheet. If the Petitioner had no balance sheet, then the Petitioner should have at least made full disclosures about his assets and liabilities through some acceptable material or documents. The contention that the Petitioner was not called upon to do so is entirely misconceived. Ultimately, the burden was on the Petitioner to show that the interest payment had caused or would cause genuine hardship. 21. The Petitioner, in his application dated 4 February 2019 seeking for waiver of interest, mainly stressed the fact that his securities, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld. The instructions were conflicting and contradictory. Therefore, it is incorrect to portray a case in which the gold and jewellery seized in 2007 were not appropriated for the tax dues despite the Petitioner's repeated requests to do the same. 28. The impugned order refers to selling a flat jointly owned by the Petitioner and his wife. There is also a reference to the Petitioner paying taxes of Rs.91.83 lakhs, and there was no clarity about the sources. There was a reference to the Petitioner being the joint owner of Flat No.401, 4th Floor, Express Towers, Borivali, Mumbai-400092. There was a reference to agricultural income and other income. However, there was reluctance to disclose the proper sources. 29. Mr Pardiwala's contention that the above material was not presented to the Petitioner, thereby denying him an opportunity to explain, cannot be countenanced in the facts of the present case. Ultimately, it was for the Petitioner to make full and credible disclosures regarding his financial position. The Petitioner, by not filing a balance sheet or statement of assets, cannot still insist on having made out a case of genuine hardship. 30. The second condition that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted as 'Streedhan'. Besides, about 500 grams of gold jewellery for each of the family members of the Petitioner's family had not been seized on the ground that the same must have been a part of their personal jewellery. There was a constant flip-flop on the sale of the seized bullion. The responses regarding sources of income were not very candid. Therefore, the Chief Commissioner's finding cannot be regarded as perverse. 36. The Chief Commissioner has also referred to circumstances like the Petitioner not paying any wealth tax or not filing returns of wealth up to Assessment Year 2015-2016, including the gold and jewellery seized and kept as security with the Income Tax department at the request of the Petitioner. Mr. Pardiwala did submit that the Petitioner was not required to pay any wealth tax. However, he did not elaborate as to why this was so. In any event, even if this aspect is excluded from consideration, still, there is no case made out to interfere with the well-reasoned order made by the Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax. 37. In this case, the Petitioner has failed to make out any case with the non-payment of the tax demanded in time was under circumstances be....