Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1961 2010 SLD 1961 (2010) 320 ITR 500 (2009) 181 TAXMAN 33

W.P. Nos. 379 TO 382 OF 2005, APRIL 20, 2009
V. DHANAPALAN, J.
R. Sivaraman for the Appellant. Arunkurien Joseph for the
Respondent.

S. Nagoor Babu

v.

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , Chennai

Law:

Section:

Section 234A, read with sections 234B and 234C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest, chargeable as - Assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97 - Assessee was a popular playback singer - For relevant assessment year, he filed his returns voluntarily but after due date - Assessing Officer accepted returns and also levied interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C - Assessee filed waiver petition before Chief Commissioner contending that his peak period had been from 1992 to 1998, during which he spent most of his time in Hyderabad and normally worked for 16 hours a day and because of his commitment he could not file his returns in time - Chief Commissioner allowed partial relief under sections 234A and 234B but confirmed levy of interest under section 234C - Whether since assessee was not a habitual defaulter in filing income-tax returns and for relevant years also he had filed his returns voluntarily, reason assigned by him could be construed as unavoidable circumstances under clause 2(e) of Notification dated 23-5-1996 in F. No. 400/234/95-IT(B) and, accordingly, his claim for waiver of interest could be considered - Held, yes Circulars and Notifications : Notification F. No. 400/234/95-IT(B), dated 23-5-1996 FACTS The assessee was a popular playback singer and was being assessed to income-tax in Chennai. For the relevant assessment years, he filed his returns of income voluntarily but after due date. The Assessing Officer accepted the returns and also levied interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. The assessee filed a waiver petition before the Chief Commis-sioner, explaining that his peak period had been from 1992 to 1998 during which he spent most of his time in Hyderabad and normally worked for 16 hours a day and because of his commitment, he could not file returns in time. He contended that his case would squarely fall within para 2(e) of the notification dated 23-5-1996 in F. No. 400/234/95-IT(B) under which the Chief Commissioner had been granted power under section 119(2)(a) by the CBDT to grant waiver of interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. The Chief Commissioner, by impugned order, granted partial waiver of interest under section…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492