2000 PLP 2545 (PTD)
MANUEL SONS WINES Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER and others
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2545 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 236 I T R 909 |
| Bench Members | A. S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J |
| Parties | MANUEL SONS WINES Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER and others |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2545 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2545 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 236 I T R 909 bench comprising: A. S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2545 (PTD) (MANUEL SONS WINES Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- P. Balachandran for Petitioner.
- P. K. R. Menon, Senior Advocate for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Interest payable under S.215 or S.217
Reduction or waiver of interest
Reduction of interest by 50 per cent by Deputy CIT and CIT after considering matter in detail
High Court would not interfere with decision in writ proceedings
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.215 & 217
Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, RAO
Constitution of India, Art.226. Rule 40(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is to the effect that the Income-tax Officer may reduce or waive the interest payable under section 215 or 217 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner considers that the circumstances are such that a reduction or waiver of the interest payable under section 215 or 217 is justified. It is for the authorities to decide as to what extent the waiver has to be given, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be made in this regard. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the matter unless there is non-application of mind by the authorities concerned: Held, dismissing the writ petition, that, in the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax as also the Commissioner of Income-tax examined the matter in detail and waived interest only to the extent of 50 per cent. The High Court could not set aside the order in writ proceedings.
Judgment & Decree
In both the original petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents, namely, the income-tax authorities, have only granted waiver of interest to the extent of 50 per cent and not its entirety. The case of the petitioners is that once the authorities come to the conclusion that the petitioners could not have anticipated the additions in the respective cases they ought to have granted relief in its entirety. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner .in both the cases as also learned counsel for the respondents. Rule 40(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is to the effect that the Income-tax Officer may reduce or waive the interest payable under section 215 or section 217 in the cases and under the circumstances when the inspecting Assistant Commissioner considers that the circumstances are such that a reduction or waiver of the interest payable under section 215 or section 217 is justified. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Ernakulam, after considering the entire matter came to the conclusion that the assessee could not have anticipated the addition to the extent to which the same was enhanced and in the facts and circumstances of the case he came to the conclusion that partial waiver would meet the ends of justice. The Deputy Commissioner has passed a reasoned order. Against this order the petitioners filed revision "petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner has also passed a reasoned order after considering the entire matter in detail. It is for the authorities to decide to what extent the waiver has to be given, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be made in this regard. As mentioned earlier, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax as also the Commissioner of Income-tax examined the matter in detail and has waived interest only to the extent of 50 per cent. This Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the matter unless there is non -application of mind by the authorities concerned. But, as far as the present case is concerned, both the authorities have considered the matter in detail and have given waiver of interest to the extent of 50 per cent. There are no merits in both the original petitions and they are dismissed. M.B.A./4176/FC Petition dismissed.