The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In respect of the assessment for the year 1994-95, amounts were charged towards interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act. The assessment of the petitioner for the said year was completed by demanding differential tax. Although the assessee carried the matter in appeal, the proceedings culminated in an order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the demand of differential tax on the assessee. In the consequential order that was passed by the Assessing Officer, interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act was also levied. Aggrieved by the levy of interest under the said provisions, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act which came to be disposed by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P4 order whereby, the 2nd respondent waived the interest levied under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act to an extent of 1/3rd of the amount levied. In the writ petition, Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent is impugned inter alia on W.P.(C).No.29885/2007 2 the ground that while passing the said order, the 2nd respondent had not validly exercised the discretion conferred on him under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. I have heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the 2nd respondent Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, while passing Ext.P4 order, was acting strictly in accordance with Ext.P6 instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the matter of grant of waiver of interest. While considering the case of the petitioner, and taking note of the peculiar circumstances that were projected by him as a reason for the delay in remitting the tax amount, the 2nd respondent deemed it appropriate to grant a limited waiver to the extent of 1/3rd of the interest levied under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act. Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be in W.P.(C).No.29885/2007 3 any way vitiated by an error of law or an erroneous exercise of discretion. In that view of the matter therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the said order in the present writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp