A.Aboobacker vs The Chief Commissioner Of Income … on 20 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21068 of 2005(G)


1. A.ABOOBACKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :20/06/2008

 O R D E R
                   C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                   --------------------------------------------
                        W.P.C. NO. 21068 OF 2005
                   --------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008

                                 JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 whereunder the Commissioner of

Income-tax declined to waive interest levied under Section 234A and B

of the I.T. Act. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that

Ext.P2 is not tenable, standing counsel pointed out that Commissioner

on examination of facts found that none of the conditions of the

circular issued by the Board for waiver of interest is satisfied. There

have been consistent decisions by several High Courts holding that

waiver of interest should be strictly in accordance with the conditions

of circular issued by the Board. Since petitioner has not satisfied the

conditions for waiver, there is no scope for interference with Ext.P2.

Even though counsel has stated that clause (e) of the Circular is

satisfied in as much as voluntary return was filed, I find that when

reassessment notice was issued under Section 148 the assessee, instead

of filing return on due date, took 10 months to file a letter stating that

his original return may be treated as return filed under Section 148. In

2

fact, the finding of the commissioner is that levy of interest is upto this

date, treating the date of letter as the date of filing of return. Therefore

no interference is called for in this matter. Another issued raised by

counsel for the petitioner is that calculation of interest under Section

234B is not correct. This was not an issue raised before the

Commissioner and therefore it cannot be considered in this Writ

Petition. However, I leave it open to the petitioner to make an

application for rectification of mistake if any committed in the levy of

interest. Since this WP was pending, the Officer should entertain the

rectification application if filed within one month from today, along

with a copy of this judgment, and dispose of the same on merits.

Reserving the above right, W.P. is dismissed.

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk

3