9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commission, to the extent that the Commission has ordered to charge the interest @ 50% under Section 234-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), and also directed for the interest under Section 234-B of the Act for the assessment year 1989-90, and similarly, it has also imposed interest under Section 234-C, with respect to the five applicants before it. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Settlement Commission has fallen in error, in imposing the interest upto 50% under Section 234-A of the Act, and similarly, has erred in imposing the interest under Section 234-B and 234-C of the Act, as it has agreed with the contentions raised by the applicants/petitioners that for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had reasonable grounds for not submitting their returns within time. He also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case titled as Jagjiwan Kumar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax and others [1997] 228 ITR 229, to submit that if the Commissioner has been satisfied then the only option available was to waive of the penalties. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case titled as "Baso Devi and others vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman and others", decided on 22.02.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the press release/CBDT Circular dated 23.05.1996 (Annexure P-6), on waiver of the interest, as issued by the Department in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberation, waived the interest under Section 220 (2) of the Act. Thus, she submits that there has been a complete application of mind on the part of Settlement Commission and, thus this Court ought not to interfere with the said orders. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/Revenue further submits that insofar as the judgments cited by the petitioners are concerned, it would have their application to the facts of the concerned case(s) alone and have no application to the present case. 8. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245-d (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners had filed the applications for settlement of their income-tax and wealth tax under Section 245-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court directly under article 136, instead of approaching the High Court under article 226. This is not a limitation inherent in article 136; it is a limitation which this court imposes on itself having regard to the nature of the function performed by the Commission and keeping in view the principles of judicial review. May be, there is also some force in what Dr. Gauri Shankar says, viz., that the order of the Commission is in the nature of a package deal and that it may not be possible, ordinarily speaking, to dissect its order and that the assessee should not be permitted to accept what is favourable to him and reject what is not. According to learned counsel, the Commission is not even required or obligated to pass a reasoned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition, is rejected. 11. So far the question that whether the discretion exercised by the Settlement Commission of reducing the interest by 50% in terms of the interest chargeable under Section 234-A of the Act is concerned, we would have to examine the provisions of Section 234-A of the Act for the purpose, which provides for charging of interest for defaults in furnishing return of income, interest for defaults in payment of advance tax and for interest for deferment of the advance tax, respectively. 12. On reading and examining the said provision, it has been noticed that the provisions of imposing the interest is automatic, and if there is a default, interest is liable to be paid. However, by the various judgments passed by Hon'ble the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not impressed by the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in terms of the circular on waiver of interest (Annexure P-6) that the interest under Section 234-B and 234-C should be waived, as depositing of advance tax has nothing to do with the seizure of the books of accounts or during the course of proceedings for search, or seizure of cash. 18. In the case of Shelly Mehta v. Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana and another, this Court has taken a view that the cash seized during the seizure cannot be a ground for waiver of advance tax or payment of tax for the subsequent year. In view thereto, we do not accept the contentions made by counsel for the petitioners and the present writ petition is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
