TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioner has enclosed an order rendered THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADURAI VERSUS M/S. SRI MANGAYARKARASI MILLS (P) LTD MADURAI [2006 (12) TMI 562 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in this case. The respondent is not in a position to show any contra decision. Therefore, the assessee cannot be blamed for short payment of advance tax by taking into account the expenditure incurred on this score. The case on hand squarely falls within Para 2(c) of the Notification dated 26.06.2006 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Even though these aspects have been pointedly raised by the assessee, the impugned order does not deal with the same at all. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. Since as alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erised only as revenue expenditure. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in decision reported in (1981) 129 ITR 12(Mad) (Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. Kasturi Mills Ltd) held as follows : The following question is sought to be referred in this matter : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of ₹ 6,53,463 representing the cost of modernisation of the mills' machinery can be said to be in the nature of revenue expenditure and should, therefore, be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75? We find that the decision of the Tribunal is based comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner can no longer contend that the expenditure incurred in modernising their mill is not chargeable to income tax. But then, the petitioner seeks waiver of interest for non payment of advance tax in this regard. The petitioner submitted an undated application to the respondent. The petitioner also submitted written submissions on 11.08.2010, 18.07.2011 and on 26.05.2018. The request of the writ petitioner stood rejected vide letter dated 18.07.2018 passed by the respondent. The same is assailed in this writ petition. 3.The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit and strongly opposed the request made by the writ petitioner. She would reiterate all the contentions set out in the counter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch financial year is found to be less than the amount of advance tax payable on his current income, and the assessee is chargeable to interest under Section 234 B or Section 234 C and the Chief Commissioner / Director General is satisfied that this is a fit case for reduction or waiver of such interest. 5.Now, what has to be seen is whether during the relevant time, the expenditure incurred by the petitioner was to be classified as revenue expenditure by any decision of the jurisdictional high court. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had already drawn my attention to three decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in (1981) 129 ITR 12 (Mad) (Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. Kas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve already held that the petitioner's case falls under Para 2(c) of the Notification dated 26.06.2006, the respondent is directed to waive the entire interest levied under Section 234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.The petitioner had already paid the interest in terms of Section 234 B of the Income Tax Act. Since I have held that the said interest will have to be waived, the petitioner is not only entitled to refund of the amount paid but also is entitled to interest thereon. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner cannot be entitled to interest of refund. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue with regard to interest is no longer res integra. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
