High Court Of Kerala
Jacob Varghese vs. CCIT
Sections 220(2), 220(2A)
Asst. Year 1985-86
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. OP No. 26262 of 2000
20th February, 2006
Counsel Appeared
John Ramesh K.I. John, for the Petitioner : P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. :
Petitioner is challenging Ext. P7 whereunder the Chief CIT has rejected petitioner’s application for waiver of interest levied under s. 220(2) of the IT Act, for belated payment of income-tax for the asst. yr. 1985-86. Counsel contended that the petitioner’s income was mainly from a partnership firm in the form of bar hotel.
According to the petitioner, the firm’s assessment was revised which led to revision of demand of tax in the petitioner’s name which caused delay in payment of tax. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chief CIT, instead of considering the matter by himself under s. 220(2A) of the IT Act referred to the report of the CIT and dismissed the claim.
The standing counsel for Revenue, on the other hand, contended that CIT has not sent any report but has forwarded the report from the AO which contained only factual position pertaining to the petitioner’s conduct. Even though petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishan Lal vs. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 145 CTR (SC) 450 : (1998) 230 ITR 85 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that a quasi- judicial authority considering the claim under s. 220(2) of the IT Act, should consider the matter independently, and decision should be rendered through a speaking order. On going through Ext. P7, I find, the Chief CIT has not gone by any opinion of any lower authority. On the other hand, he has collected facts pertaining to the petitioner from assessment records through the AO which was routed through the CIT and decided the matter by himself. Petitioner delayed payment of tax for ten years and six months and has not co-operated with the Department in payments and settlement of arrears. In view of the factual findings contained in Ext. P7, based on which petitioner’s application was rejected, I do not think there is any justification to interfere with Ext. P7. OP is therefore dismissed but without costs.
[Citation : 287 ITR 442]
