Andhra Conductors Pvt. Ltd., V. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,

WP/22606/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Andhra Conductors Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Jugraj Jain, who filed a writ petition against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kadapa. The petition sought to quash an order dated 29.05.2017, which pertained to the imposition of interest amounting to Rs.11,96,413 for the assessment year 1983-84 under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The background of the case includes a series of assessments and re-assessments starting from the year 1984-85, with the final assessment being completed on 29.09.1993. The petitioner had paid the dues including interest but later sought a waiver of the interest after a significant delay, which the court found to be unreasonable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771483 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: VEDULA SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Assessment year 1983-84; Inordinate delay; Interest Waiver; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 263; 143; 220(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 22606 OF 2017 Between: Andhra Conductors Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, No.58, Perumal Mudili Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600001. Rep. by its Director, Jugraj Jain, S/o. Champa Lai, Aged about 60 years. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kadapa Range, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to quash the order of the 1st respondent in F.No.CCIT/VJA/2017-18, dated 29.05.2017 and to direct the respondents to waive the interest of Rs.11,96,413/- pertaining to the 'Assessment year 1983-84, imposed U/s.220(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. i.*' 'v ’ ill LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 27829 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to hear the writ petition on out of turn basis at an early date, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. : SRI. VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following Order: GN, J. &KM, J. W.P.No.22606 of 2017 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Writ Petition No.22606 of 2017 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar) When the case is called, there is no representation on behalf of the Pfttitinnpr 2. We have heard Sri Vijhay Kumar Punna, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, and perused the impugned order, dated 29.05.2017. The instant dispute has its origins in an assessment of the y^ar 1984-85, which were subjected to proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), and thereafter, re-assessment under Section 143 of the Act, which came to be completed 26.03.1990, which then was taken up before the C.l.T. Appeals as well as before the I.T.A.T. and eventually attained finality at the hands of the I.T.A.T. and the assessment was completed at Rs.24,64,380/- as on 29.09.1993. The dues including the interest were assessed and the same came to be paid by the Petitioner. .After a lapse of more than 15 years, the Petitioner has woken-up and preferred a petition pn 19.12.2009 seeking waiver of interest levied under Section 220(2) of the Act. Thus, it is seen that there has been delay of more than 15 years in 3. on 2 I GN, J. &KM, J. W.P.No.22606of2017 seeking for waiver of the interest, which came to be rejected on the ground that the assessee do^s not comply with the demands of the provisions of Section 220(2) of the Act. The claim having been rendered stale on account of the inordinate delay, in our considered opinion, lacks merit. 4. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. The dismissal of the Writ Petition will not preclude the Writ petitioner from seeking review, if they » so desire. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD copies KP HIGH COURT DATED: 15/07/2024 11) SEP 2c?'i a! ORDER WP.No.22606 of 2017 /a: 1!VO ^ Current Section •k.4 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS "