TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order had cited an erroneous reason, that by itself does not persuade us to take a different view in the matter since we find that the return filed by the appellant in response to the Section 158BC notice was only on 01.05.2000, well beyond the time prescribed under the Act for filing the said return. As already noticed, the levy of interest under the said provision is automatic and the power to waive the said interest while lies with the CBDT u/s 119 (2)(a) of the Act, the said power can be exercised only in relation to a class of cases and not to individual cases. Thus, even if we were persuaded to remit the matter to the CBDT for a fresh consideration, taking note of the erroneous reason furnished by them in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was preferred by the appellant herein impugning Exts. P11 and P16 orders. Ext. P11 was an order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for brevity, CBDT) in an application filed by the appellant under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Ext. P16 was the demand notice issued by the Income Tax Authorities based on the settlement arrived at before the Settlement Commission in Ext.P5 order. The essential grievance of the appellant as projected in the writ petition was with regard to the demand of interest under Section 158BFA of the Act, as also under Section 245D(6A) of the said Act. While out of the total demand of Rs. 29,97,692/- mentioned in Ext. P16 demand notice dated 29.05.2017, an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards the demand of interest under Section 245D(6A), the appellant had erroneously assumed that the interest under this provision was levied in terms of Section 220(2) of the Act, and therefore, had approached the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax with Ext. P17 petition under Section 220(2A) of the Act seeking waiver of interest and the said authority had not passed any order thereon. 4. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter rejected the contentions of the appellant inter alia on the finding that the levy of interest under Section 158BFA was automatic once the quantum of tax payable by the appellant was determined finally by the Settlement Commission. The learned Judge also found that in as much as the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Department seeking extension of time to file return stating therein that the documents, on the basis of which a true and complete return could be filed, had been seized by the Sales Tax Department and thereafter requisitioned by the Income Tax Department under Section 132A of the Act. In substance, the contention of the appellant is that for the delay occasioned by the Income Tax Authorities in furnishing the required documents that were in their possession to him, he could not be penalized with the demand of interest for the said delay. It is also his contention that as regards the demand under Section 245D(6A) of the Act, the default in payment of the tax amount determined as payable by the Settlement Commission was occasioned only beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment were filed only on 01.05.2000, well beyond the period provided under statute for filing the said return. It is further pointed out that in terms of Section 119(2)(a) of the Act the exercise of discretion to waive interest under Section 158BFA can be only in relation to a class of cases and not to individual cases since it would go against the expressed provisions of the statute and also against the object behind those provisions that are designed to prevent interference by the Board with the discretion of quasi-judicial authorities engaged in assessment of individual cases. With regard to the contentions regarding the demand of interest under Section 245D(6A) of the Act, it is his submission that the said interest being leviable for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alone the CBDT can exercise its discretion to grant waiver of the interest demanded. As regards the demand of interest under Section 245D(6A), we find that the said interest is levied for the delayed payment of the tax determined as payable by the Settlement Commission, which was a forum chose by the appellant himself for settlement of the dispute with the Income Tax Department. The provision being part of the Code under Chapter XIX-A of the Act, the interest levied thereunder cannot be waived since it has to be seen as forming an integral part of the Settlement that resulted pursuant to the appellant approaching the Settlement Commission of his own volition. Thus in any view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
