9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87, the company had purchased a ship on 02.08.1995 and investment allowance was claimed. During the previous year relavant to the assessment year 1987-88, the petitioner had purchased two ships and claimed investment allowance. In addition to the aforesaid three ships, the petitioner had also purchased a dredger on 20.08.1990 and the petitioner debited the said amount to the P & L account and credited to the investment allowance reserve account . The details are as follows:- Sl. No Assessmet Year Amount (Rs.) 1 86-87 86,52,447 2 87-88 1,43,295 3 92-93 11,89,41,592 4 93-94 8,58,75,046 5 94-95 21,16,52,404 3. Initially, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in TCA Nos.99 to 101 of 2002. After the disposal of the writ petition, the Bank accounts of the petitioner were attached and steps were taken for recovery by issuance of notice under Section 133(6) of the Act and summons was also issued under Section 131 of the Act to furnish the list of debtors, list of persons to whom loans advanced, etc. Subsequently, a meeting was convened with the officials of the Income Tax Department on 15.03.2002. The respondent-Department acceded to the petitioner's request to permit them to pay arrears of Income Tax in instalments, after adjusting the refund due to the petitioner for the assessement years 1986-87, 1998-99 and 2001-02. The details of the amount paid by the petitioner is as follows:- Amount p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... control of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner co-operated with the Assessing Authorities during all stages of assessment proceedings and recovery proceedings and initially remitted a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as directed by the ITAT, during the pendency of the appeal. Subsequently, they unconditionally agreed before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, for paying the entire tax liability after adjusting the refunds, in instalments and they strictly adhered to the intsalment schedule. Therefore, the petitioner contended that directing the petitioner to pay interest would cause genuine hardship to them. Default in payment of interest was due to circumstances beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns namely, (i) if the payment would cause genuine hardship; (ii) default in payment was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and, (iii) the assessee has co-operated in the enquiry related to the assessement or other proceedings, recovery of any amount due from them. 8. The second respondent in the impugned order has held that the petitioner was non co-operative, as they had approached this Court and filed a writ petition when notice under Section 226(3) of the Act was issued. With regard to condition (ii), viz., circumstances beyond the control of assessee is concerned, the second respondent proposed to interpret one of the clause in the agreement between the petitioner and the TamilNadu Electricity Board and cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad granted an order of interim stay till the disposal of the appeal subject to certain conditions, which the petitioner had complied with. Therefore, when notice under Section 226(3) of the Act was issued it was well open to the petitioner to safeguard the interest of the company and for which purpose, they have approached the Court of law. Merely because the petitioner had approached the Court of law, they should not be penalised or found fault with. Every person is entitled to seek appropriate remedy, when an action is initiated against him, unless and until it is established that such availment of remedy before the Court of law was abuse of process of Court or for certain other mala fide reasons. In the impugned order, there is no such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly in-correct. Thus, for the above reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has fulfilled all the three conditions contained under Section 220(2A) of the Act and thus, entitled for waiver of interest. 11. Accordingly, this Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is seen that at the time, when the writ petition was allowed, an order of interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the amount demanded within a period of eight weeks. This condition has been complied with by the petitioner. In the light of the above order, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the said amount and this amount can be adjusted against the future assessments. No costs. Consequently, connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
