Pothuri Badarinarayana, (INDV) V. The Chief Commission of Income-tax,

WP/11786/1997

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Pothuri Badarinarayana and others against the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P., and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the rejection of their petition for waiver of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The rejection was initially made without any reasons or a hearing, which the petitioners argued was arbitrary and illegal. The court found that the rejection lacked proper reasoning and did not follow due process, leading to the decision to set aside the rejection and remand the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727690 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V KRISHNA KOUNDINYA
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Illegal; Unjust; Waiver of interest; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 234B; 234A; 234C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11786 of 1997 Between: 1 Pothuri Badarinarayana, (INDV) S/o. Venkata Subbaiah. D.No.11-40-31, Pulipativari Street, Vijayawada-1. 2 Pothuri Badarinarayana, (HUF) S/o. Venkata Subbaiah. D.No.11-40-31, Pulipativari Street, Vijayawada-1. 3 Pothuri Siva Parvathi, W/o. Badarinarayana. D.No.11-40-31, Pulipativari Street, Vijayawada-1. 4 Pothuri Rajaratnam, C/o.Badarinarayana. D.No.11-40-31, Pulipativari Street, Vijayawada-1. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chief Commission of Income-tax, A.P., Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Inv. Circle-2, Vijayayawada. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents in rejecting the petition for waiver is highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.J.V.PRASAD The Court made the following : O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao): Heard Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners filed this writ petition for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting their petition dated 17-02-1995 for waiver of interest by orders dated 27-09-1996 in CO.Tech/RC-2(61)/VSP/94-95 as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioners is that they have filed the petition for waiver of interest by pointing out the reasons and grounds on which they were entitled to the same. However, the respondents rejected the petition without considering the same and even the order passed thereon is totally bereft of any reasons. Hence, the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, who has filed a counter-affidavit, sought to sustain the order dated 27-09-1996 on the ground that the reasons for such rejection are incorporated in the counter-affidavit and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the point which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order passed by the respondents rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for waiver of interest suffers for want of reasons and is liable to be set aside. There is no dispute of the bare facts. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, seeking waiver of interest, dated 17-02-1995, the petitioners have come out with reasons and with all details in support of the petition. However, the respondents, admittedly, did not give any notice of hearing and passed the order dated 27-09-1996 rejecting the petition. The order reads as under- “The waiver petition dated 17-02-1995 filed by Sri Pothuri Badrinarayana, Vijayawada for waiver of interest u/S 234A, 234B & 234C for the assessment year 1992-93 & 1993-94 has been carefully considered and rejected”. From the above, it is quite apparent that the said order is totally laconic and bereft of any reasons except stating that the petition was carefully considered and rejected. Such a practice has been deprecated many times by the Apex Court and by this Court. In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner[1], while considering similar such circumstances, the Apex Court held- “When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” Therefore, even the submission sought to be made on behalf of the respondents that the reasons for rejection of the petition of the petitioners for waiver of interest are detailed in the counter-affidavit is not enough to sustain the said order. Admittedly, there being no hearing and no reasons, the petition for waiver of interest has to be considered afresh after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 27-09-2006 is set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petition of the petitioners afresh, on merits, in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. No order as to costs. __________________ B.Prakash Rao, J Dated 4th April, 2008 __________________ C.Y.Somayajulu,J vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chief Commission of Income-tax, A.P., Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Inv. Circle-2, Vijayayawada. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM} [1] AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 "