1985 PLP 737 (PTD)
THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Versus THE INCOME‑TAX OFFICER, C‑WARD, TRIVANDRUM AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1985 PLP 737 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Kerala High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | G. Balagangadharan Nair, J |
| Parties | THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Versus THE INCOME‑TAX OFFICER, C‑WARD, TRIVANDRUM AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 737 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 737 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Kerala High Court (India) bench comprising: G. Balagangadharan Nair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 737 (PTD) (THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Versus THE INCOME‑TAX OFFICER, C‑WARD, TRIVANDRUM AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K. P. Radhakrishna Menon, A. K. Ravindranath K. Karthikeya Panicker C. N. Sreekumar and Mathew Cheriyan for Petitioner.
- P. K. Ravindranatha Menon and N. R. K. Nair for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Words "reduce" and "waive"‑Meaning of‑Words are not inter changeable and they convey different meanings‑Assessee found to have sufficient cause for furnishing returns late‑I. T. O. is not obliged to waive interest altogether. (1976) 104 I T R 597 and (1974) 93 I T R 563 (Guj.) ref.
Judgment & Decree
4. What the proviso to subsection (8) of section 139 rule 117‑A (v) between themselves prescribes is that the interest payable under section 139(8) may be reduced or waived even where the assessee had satisfied the Income- tax Officer that he was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within time. The petitioner however contends that on such satisfaction being given, as here, the original or the revisional authority as the case may be, has to totally waive the interest. In aid of this argument, it was contended that the words "reduce" or "waive" connote the same thing and that interest has, therefore, to be given up in full. This it was contended, the respondents had failed to do.
5. The petitioner could succeed if only the contention that the word "reduce" is interchangeable with "waiver". That requires to be considered.
6. The relevant meanings of the word 'reduce' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary are 'diminish (reduce liquid to two‑thirds of its bulk ; reduce the prices of the goods, the temperature of the mixture); convert to smaller number of omission, reclassification etc.' . and of waive : "Refrain from insisting on or using, tacitly or implicitly, relinquish or forge (right, claim, opportunity, legitimate plea etc.)." Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary gives the following relevant meanings "Reduce...to bring into a lower state : to lessen : to diminish in weight of girth ; to weaken to break up, separate, disintegrate :" waive to give up voluntarily, as a claim or a contention; to refrain from claiming, demanding, taking, or enforcing ; to forgo." Reget's International Thesaurus 3rd Edition gives the following : "Reduce, decrease, diminish, lessen, take from; lower, depress, step down (coil) tune down (coil) scale down (U. S.) downgrade; depreciate, deflate; curtail, retrench, cut, cut down, cut back, roll back (as prices coil); shorten, compress." Waive in the name book has the following relevant equivalents : "Give up, relinquish, surrender, yield, forgo, renounce, forewear, drop;" None of these dictionaries establishes counsel's contention that the two words have the same meaning and are interchangeable. While 'reduce' means to diminish, or decrease "waive" means to refrain from insisting on, or claiming or demanding or to relinquish or forgo or give up etc. Counsel however endeavoured to make out his case by referring to Collins Corn Dictionary of Synonyms & Antonyms and Reader's Digest Use the Right Word‑A modern guide to Synonyas. In Com 'reduce' is defined, to quote the relevant senses, as ; abate. abridge, contract, curtail, decrease, diminish, lessen, shorten. None of the senses equate 'reduce' with waiver, not even "abate" on which particular emphasis was placed by counsel. "Abate" in `Gem' means only 'decline; decrease, diminish, ebb, lessee, mitigate, moderate, .reduce, sink, slacken, subside, wane, and in Concise Oxford Dictionary it means ; Diminish; make or grow less ; Do away with (nuisance) ; lower (price); deduct (specified or unspecified part of price); mitigate violence, pain) ; weaken (energy), 'Gem' in my view affords the petitioner no support.
7. Turning to the Guide by Reader's Digest the synonyms for 'reduce' are : 'abate, curtail, diminish, lower'. It is further observed "These words mean to make or to become smaller or less, but they are not in all cases interchangeable. Reduce has a wider range of connotations than the other words and is also the most general. It means to make less in size, amount, number, extent or intensity : to reduce household expenses: to reduce a labour force during a slack season; to reduce speed on a highway undergoing repairs; to reduce the acreage of a property by selling off several paddocks..." The same book explains 'abate' thus "Abate means to reduce, as in strength or degree, usually from an excessive intensity or amount. In this sense, it is most frequently an intransitive verb...In a legal sense, abate is used transitively and means to do away with completely or to make null and void in whole or in part; to abate a nuisance; to abate rent." It was argued from this last use and illustration of the word 'abate' that it could be used to denote waiver of interest and as abate is a synonym of reduce, waive is also a synonym of reduce. I find it difficult to agree with this contention and the process underlying it. For one thing "waiver" is not a synonym for "reduction" and for another the word 'abate' is no synonym for the word 'waive', I do not also think that this tortuous process is per missible or legitimate to determine the meanings or equivalents of the word 'waiver'.
8. The proviso to section, 139(8) uses the words "seduce or waive". The use of the two words as alternatives signifies that they were employed not as interchangeable or as conveying the same idea; the intention obviously was to convey different ideas and to confer two different powers, the power to reduce interest and if it was so thought fit to waive interest altogether, I see no compelling reason to attribute a needless tautology to the legislature.
8. The power to levy interest for delayed furnishing of return under section 139 (8) is compensatory and not punitive as has been held by this Court in Kerala Tile Clay Works v. Commissioner I.‑T. (1976) 104 I T R 597) In Additional B Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Santosh Industries (1974) 93 I T R 563 : 1974 Tax L R 753 1985 P T D (Trib.) 742), one of the decisions followed in that case the Gujarat High Court observed : "Interest is not charged to him by way of penalty but he is required to pay it, because by reason of extension of time, the filing of the return would be delayed and that would in its turn delay the assessment and consequent realisation of tax from the assessee. It is, therefore, by way of compensation for delay in realisation of tax that interest is required to be paid by the assessee. Exh. P. 8 does not, therefore, err in having taken into account anything irrelevant.
10. Respondent 2 was within his jurisdiction when he observed that' this was not a fit case for a total waiver of the interest. There is no ground made out to quash Exh. P. 4 or P.
8. The original Petition is dismissed. No costs. M. B. A. Petition dismissed.