TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked up, after a period of 27 years - the petitioner sought for waiver of the demand on interest, for the subsequent period, i.e., January 1990 to October 2005. In B.M. Malani v. CIT [2008 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] it has been held the genuine hardship inter-alia means a genuine difficulty, that per se would not lead to the conclusion that a person having large assets would never be in difficulty as he can sell those assets and pay the amount of interest levied - when the Department, for the first time issued the demand on the petitioner in the year 2005, the petitioner did not contest the demand, though he submitted representations requesting for furnishing of details - the tax and interest up to that date (January 1990) was paid in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - representing the interest under Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter will be referred to as the Rules ). Against the said demand, the petitioner preferred an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220 (2) of the Act for waiver of the interest demanded. 3. In the said petition, the petitioner stated that more than 25 years, the petitioner was an assessee on the file of the Income Tax Officer, Circle- II(4), Trichy, and then he was a student and his income tax affairs were looked after by his father, Mr.K.S.Rajan, who is no more at present and the taxes were also paid and there was no outstanding demand. It was further stated that the petitioner has settled down in Madras and his old assessment recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. After making payment of ₹ 58,000/-, which includes the tax and interest, the Tax Recovery Officer again raised a demand of ₹ 65,472/- claiming interest under Rule 5 of the Rules for the period from January 1990 till October 2005 and the demand shows arrears only as ₹ 24,835/- and interest (including the sum of ₹ 65,472/-) is ₹ 98,637/-. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the entire interest charged may be waived, as the petitioner has paid the tax and interest earlier demanded, though it caused hardship to him in arranging the necessary funds, and then, the non-payment of tax is because of reasons beyond his control and he cooperated with the Department in all proceedings in the payment of tax. 5. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of the income tax dues. 9. Section 220 (2A) of the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable by the assessee, subject to the assessee satisfying the following three conditions:- (i) payment of such amount has caused or would cause genuine hardship to the assessee; (ii) default in the payment of the amount on which interest has been paid or was payable under the said sub-section was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee; and (iii) the assessee has co-operated in any inquiry relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought for information, such as copy of the assessment order, etc., This was not furnished, despite the petitioner's pointing out that the matter has been racked up, after a period of 27 years. Nevertheless, the petitioner paid ₹ 58,000/-. After having accepted the amount, the respondents demanded interest from January 1990 till the date of payment, i.e., October 2005 and stated that if the same is not paid, the respondent would initiate action. 12. In the light of the above, the petitioner sought for waiver of the demand on interest, for the subsequent period, i.e., January 1990 to October 2005. The authority, while examining such application, as regards genuine hardship, should take into consideration the circumstances which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax, as per the reassessment, the Commissioner was directed to waive the interest. 15. In the light of the above referred to decisions, if the case on hand is examined, it is seen that when the Department, for the first time issued the demand on the petitioner in the year 2005, the petitioner did not contest the demand, though he submitted representations requesting for furnishing of details. Nevertheless, the petitioner paid the tax amount together with the interest, which was calculated and demanded by the Department. At that point of time, prior to the petitioner remitting the amount, the Department did not issue the revised reassessment / demand, till that date, but the demand was only for interest calculated up to January 1990. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
