SHAHINA BABU V. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/12819/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Shahina Babu, the widow of the late K.V. Naushad Ali Babu, who was the Chief Executive of the Cochin Branch of M/s. Akbar Travels. Following her husband's suicide and subsequent tax assessments on the business, Shahina contested the interest demanded on the assessed tax amount, claiming a waiver under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act. Despite her appeals and reminders, the tax authorities did not respond, leading her to challenge the recovery proceedings initiated for the interest amount. The court found the delay in responding to her waiver request unjustified and ordered a halt to the recovery proceedings until a decision on her waiver request is made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756014 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: D KISHORE
• Keywords: Appeal; Income tax assessment; Revenue Recovery Proceedings; Tribunal; Waiver of interest
• Section: 220(2A)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12819 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAHINA BABU,W/O.LATE K.V.NAUSHAD ALI BABU,A/104-BHARATHI-I APARTMENTS,SHERLY RAJAN ROAD,NEAR RISWI COLLEGE,BANDRA,WEST MUMBAI, PIN-400050. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDINGS,I.S.PRESS ROAD,COCHIN-682018. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I,CR BUILDINGS,I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682018. ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 12819 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the wife of deceased assessee Noushad Ali Babu, who was the Chief Executive of the Cochin Branch of M/s.Akbar Travels owned by his brother. The husband of the petitioner committed suicide on 6/12/2000. There was a search in the business premises of Akbar Travels at Mumbai and Cochin. A total amount of Rs.40,64,650/- was assessed as tax as per order dated 19/4/2001. The petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and as per the appellate order, the tax payable by the petitioner was reduced and fixed at Rs.11,19,629/-. Both the assessee and the Revenue had filed appeals against the said order before the Income Tax Tribunal, Cochin and both appeals were dismissed. According to the petitioner, she has paid the entire amount of tax assessed. However, an amount of Rs.12,13,421/- is demanded by the 3rd respondent as interest. 2. The petitioner contends that she is entitled to claim WPC NO. 12819/2011 -2- waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has, therefore, submitted Ext.P3 petition seeking waiver of interest on 23/4/2010. Thereafter, she has also submitted a reminder on 4/1/2011, which is marked as Ext.P4. However, in spite of the above, no orders have been passed on Ext.P4 till date. In the above circumstances, the Assessing Authority has issued Ext.P6 intimating her that the amount demanded would be recovered by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6. 3. Sri.Jose Joseph learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that the entire amount of tax due has been paid by the petitioner. But, her liability to pay interest does not disappear with the payment of the tax. The Revenue is certainly entitled to recover the interest portion also by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The learned standing counsel also points out that the petitioner is a person who earns a substantial income and therefore is capable of paying the amount demanded. For the above reason, it is contended that the present proceedings against her WPC NO. 12819/2011 -3- is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. Admittedly Ext.P3 petition filed seeking waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act is pending before the first respondent since 23/4/2010. However, no order has been passed thereon. I notice that more than a year has lapsed since the filing of that petition. Ext.P3 has been followed up with a reminder Ext.P4 dated 4/1/2011. However, in spite of the above, no orders have been passed by the first respondent so far. In the above circumstances, it is highly improper for the Authorities to have issued proceedings in the nature of Ext.P6 seeking recovery of the amount demanded through revenue revenue recovery proceedings. The first respondent should have passed final orders on Ext.P3 before proceeding to recover the interest demanded. If the petitioner is entitled to waiver of the interest, either of a portion of the amount claimed or of the entire interest, proceedings in the nature of Ext.P6 would certainly be unnecessary. WPC NO. 12819/2011 -4- In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 petition filed by the petitioner under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act seeking waiver of interest as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Until final orders are passed on Ext.P3, further action based on the proceedings under Ext.P6 to recover the amount demanded therein shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. dpk "