M.K.KAMALA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/15941/2008

AI Insights

The case involves M. Kamala, an 80-year-old illiterate woman, who was assessed under the Income Tax Act for the year 1984-1985. She did not file a return despite a notice under Section 148, leading to an assessment under Section 144. Kamala applied for a waiver of the interest demanded, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The rejection was based on her non-cooperation in the assessment process. The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging her non-cooperation, considered her age and illiteracy, leading to a reduction in the interest liability.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755896 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R MENON; JOSE MOSEPH; GEORGE K GEORGE; P NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAO; N SHOBHA
• Keywords: Assessment; Illiteracy; Income Tax; Interest Waiver; Non-cooperation; Age Consideration
• Section: 148; 144; 220(2A)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 15941 of 2008 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M.KAMALA, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.M.BANTAPPA CHANILO, \"SHREE SADASIVA KRIPA\", AMBARU, MANGALPADY, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAHANA BUILDING, MELE CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 2. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX, KANNOCHUMACHAL, RANGE-1, KANNUR 670 006. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE MOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAXES SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 15941 of 2008 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15941 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2012 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It appears that for the assessment year 1984-1985, the petitioner did not file return even in spite of a notice issued to her under Section 148. In such circumstances, assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. She sought complete waiver of the interest demanded by an application under Section 220 (2A) of the Act. A copy of this application is Ext.P1. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order passed by the first respondent, the relevant portion of which, reads thus: “I have considered the argument of the learned Advocate. Section 220(2A) prescribed three conditions to be satisfied. All the conditions taken together should be satisfied and assessee must co-operate not only in assessment but also in recovery. In this case, obviously, the assessee has not co-operated in assessment because return was not filed despite issue of notice under Section 148. Therefore, assessee is not eligible for waiver of interest. The application is rejected. “ W.P.(C).No.15941/2008 : 2 : It is challenging Ext.P2, the writ petition is filed. 2. By order dated 29.05.2008, this Court granted stay of Ext.P2 order on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.60,000/-. According to the petitioner, this condition has been complied with. 3. Reading of Ext.P2 shows that the ground on which the application was rejected is that the petitioner did not co- operate in the assessment proceedings by filing a return even in spite of a notice under Section 148 issued to her. Having regard to the factual position that the petitioner did not file a return, this finding in Ext.P2 order is unassailable. 4. However, fact remains that the petitioner is an 85 year old lady and is an illiterate. In such circumstances, the first respondent could have considered her request atleast for reduction of the interest liability and in my view, facts of this case justify an order reducing the interest liability. Therefore, I direct that Ext.P2 will stand modified and the interest levied shall stand reduced to Rs.60,000/-. It is directed that accepting Rs.60,000/-, which the petitioner has already paid W.P.(C).No.15941/2008 : 3 : in pursuance to the interim order dated 29.05.2008 towards the interest liability, the demand will be treated as satisfied. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln "