Bosch Limited V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-LTU and Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax-LTU

WP/48496/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Bosch Limited, which filed a writ petition against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore, rejecting their application for waiver of interest under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-2011. The petitioner argued that the Chief Commissioner's decision was contrary to the Board's order dated 26.06.2006, which they believed applied to their case. The respondents supported the impugned order. The court, after hearing both parties, agreed with the petitioner that the Chief Commissioner's interpretation was incorrect and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808690 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: K P KUMAR; T SURYANARAYANA
• Keywords: Advance tax; Business turnover; Income Tax; Waiver of interest
• Section: 234C; 226

Judgement Text

" WP.No.48496/2013 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.48496/2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN: BOSCH LIMITED P.O. BOX NO.3000 HOSUR ROAD, ADUGODI BANGALORE-560 030 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SOUMITRA BHATTACHARYA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. SURYANARAYANA FOR M/S. KING & PATRIDGE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-LTU JSS TOWERS, 100 FT RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-LTU JSS TOWERS, 100 FT RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 10.07.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR WP.No.48496/2013 -2 - WAIVER OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 10.7.2013 (Annexure-J) passed by the Chief Commissioner (LTU), Bangalore, rejecting the petitioner’s application for waiver of interest under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. I have heard Sri K.P. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.V. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned order. 3. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the consideration made by the Chief Commissioner is vitiated being contrary to the Board’s order dtd. 26.06.2006 (Annexure-B) inasmuch as the Chief Commissioner in para 3.1 of the impugned order has observed that the Board’s WP.No.48496/2013 -3 - order for waiver of interest will not apply to business turnover. He submitted that the Board’s order would apply to any income chargeable to income tax other than “Capital Gains”. However, Sri K.V. Aravind, learned standing Counsel supported the impugned order. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that several other observations made in the course of the impugned order are also factually not correct. He submitted that the observation of the Chief Commissioner that the petitioner had paid less advance tax during the year in question compared to the previous year, is factually not correct. He further submitted that the substantial rise in the business income during the last quarter of the Financial Year 2009-10 was neither anticipated nor was in the contemplation of the assessee. 5. On the facts of the case, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioner for waiver of interest is not properly considered by the Chief Commissioner. The observation that the Board’s order dtd. 26th June 2006 does not apply to business turnover is not correct. Hence, I deem it WP.No.48496/2013 -4 - appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Chief Commissioner, Bangalore for reconsideration in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Petition disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE BNS "