S.V.JAMEELA V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

WP(C)/27760/2005

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Jameela, the petitioner, who challenged the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam, regarding the waiver of interest on delayed tax payments for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The petitioner argued that the interest on compensation amounts, which were subject to tax, was received only in April 2001, and thus, the delay in filing the tax return should be excused. However, the Chief Commissioner had allowed a waiver of interest under Section 234A only up to June 30, 2001, for the year 2000-2001 and denied waivers for Sections 234B and 234C. The court upheld this decision, agreeing with the reasoning that the tax liability on the interest income accrued before the actual receipt of the amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727016 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R MENON; GEORGE K GEORGE; LILLY
• Assessee Lawyers: V GIRI; S
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Delay in filing; Income Tax; Waiver of interest
• Section: 139(1); 234B; 234A; 234C; 119(2)(a)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 27760 of 2005 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- SMT.JAMEELA, MUTHAV ALLY-WAKF RA.4310, 3/242, `NEST', AREEKAD POST NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.V.GIRI SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF DIRECT TAXES, I.S. PRESS ROAD ERNAKULAM. 2. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-2, NORTH BLOCK, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27760 of 2005 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN DT.26.12.2001 FOR THE YEAR 2000-2001 EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN DT.26.12.2001 FOR THE YEAR 2001-2002 EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.22.01.2002 FOR THE YEAR 2000- 2001 EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.22.01.2002 FOR THE YEAR 2001- 2002 EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF THE WAIVER PETITION DT.20.02.2002 FOR THE YEAR 2000- 2001 EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF THE WAIVER PETITION DT.20.02.2002 FOR THE YEAR 2001- 2002 EXT.P7:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.20.05.2002 EXT.P8:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.5.1.2000 EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.23.08.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.27760 of 2005 ............................................................. Dated this the 14th day of October, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent passed under Section 119 (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the plea of the petitioner for a waiver of interest under Section 234 A, 234B and 234C for the assessment year 2000- 2001 and 2001-2002 is rejected, save to the limited extent of allowing the waiver of interest under Section 234A for the period upto 30.06.2001 for the assessment year 2000-2001. While the petitioner impugns the findings in Ext.P7 order on the contention that the interest amount, that had accrued on the compensation amounts that were payable to the petitioner, was actually received by her only in April 2001, it is a fact that the liability to pay tax on the said interest income accrued to the petitioner even before that. In Ext.P7 order, the 1st respondent notices that even though the interest was received only on April 2001, the return for the year was filed only on 26.12.2001 and hence the delay in filing the return, up to 30.06.2001 alone could be treated as reasonable and was condoned by accepting the contentions of the petitioner. A different yardstick was adopted for the assessment year 2001-2002 since the the last date for filing the returns under Section 139(1) for the said year was 31.08.2001. Considering the facts of the case W.P.(C).No.27760 of 2005 -2- before him the 1st respondent did not see any reason to condone the delay and consequently, to waive the interest under Sections 234B and 234C for both the years in question. The only waiver that was granted to the petitioner was in respect of interest under Section 234A for the assessment year 2000-2001 and that too for the period up to 30-06-2001. On a perusal of Ext.P7 order and the reasons contained therein, I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent while considering the application for waiver submitted by the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No.27760 of 2005 -3- "