TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s perhaps could to have considered these factors and such eventualities while issuing the said circular. However, it has restricted to specified instances for grant of waiver. Since, the respondent is bound by the circular, I find no fault in the impugned orders of the respondent in refusing to grant waiver to the petitioner in terms of the said circular. Waiver of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1962 for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 2002-03 and 2004-05 can be directed to be given to the petitioner if there were decisions of the Tribunal or High Court though not of the jurisdictional Tribunal/High Court which would have allowed the petitioner to entertain such belief. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the cases be remitted back to the respondent to re-examine the issue afresh. In case the petitioner is able to show existence of any judgment of the Tribunal/High Court though not necessarily of the jurisdictional Tribunal/High Court at the time of filing of return, respondent can grant waiver/exemption to the petitioner by liberally construing the Circular. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the cases are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected. (* Paragraph numbers vary in each of the impugned order) 5.The petitioner an exporter of leather products had assumed that it was not liable to pay income tax and therefore had failed to pay advance tax on such export turnover. The petitioner had later claimed exemption under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95, the returns filed by the petitioner were accepted after processing under Section 143 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, assessments were reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 orders came to be passed under Section 147 of the said Act. 6.For the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05, the returns were processed and assessments were completed under Section 143 (3) by re-computing the relief under Section 80 HHC by partially granting refund of total income. 7.Since there was a delay in payment of advance Income Tax, the petitioner was called upon to pay interest under section 234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Details of the interest demanded are detailed below:- A.Y Admitted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently reversed by the Honourable Supreme Court only on 11th March, 2004 in IPCA laboratories Ltd., vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 266 ITR 0521 and therefore the petitioner paid the tax and prayed for waiver of Income Tax. 10.It is submitted that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have granted waiver of interest in favour of the petitioner in the exercise of power conferred under the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the aforesaid circular dated 26.06.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the decision of the court in R.Mani vs Chief Inspector of Income Tax, 2017 SCC OnLine 15884 and the decision of the court in N.Haridas and Co. vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 2007 SCC OnLine 1061. 11.Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the income tax department Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap submits that the impugned orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax were well reasoned and require no interference under Article 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12.He submits that the waiver can be granted only where any income was not chargeable to income tax in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and held that condition for claiming deduction under Section 80P, 80HH or 80M (as it stood) was not there in Section 80HHC and therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. This view was reversed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 11.03.2004 in IPCA laboratories Ltd., vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 266 ITR 0521. 17.Income Tax Act, 1961 is a Central enactment. The decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court rendered under the said enactment are widely reported and followed by assessee and tax practitioners. 18.They have both persuasive and precedential value. The authorities in the hierarchy under the Income Tax Act, 1961 are bound by the decisions rendered by such higher forums. 19.Therefore, the petitioner can legitimately state that it was entitled to take a bonafide view that it was eligible for exemption from payment of tax and/or claim deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provided there were decisions of Tribunal though not of the jurisdictional Tribunal or the High Court as the case may be to enterta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
