IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 18TH BHADRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 5632 OF 2017 PETITIONER:

SMT.CHANDRA BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O K.BALAKRISHNAN, “MURUGA NIVAS”, KORANDATTIL LANE, SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.

BY ADVS.

SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)

SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SMT.MERLIN MANSY SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS:

1 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018.

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION CIRCLE-1, DIVISION-1, THRISSUR-680001.

3 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON-CORPORATE RANGE, THRISSUR-680 001.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)

SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

--------------------------------------------

WP(C)No.5632 of 2017 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the day of 9th September 2024

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for Short) has filed this writ petition, challenging Ext.P10 order issued by the 1^st respondent, by which an application for waiver of statutory interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act stood rejected.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner’s assessment for the block period from 01.04.1985 to 21.07.1995 stood completed under Section 158BC of the Act, pursuant to a search conducted on

21.07.1995.

3. The order of assessment was modified pursuant to certain directions issued by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal and Ext.P2 order was issued implementing the directions contained in the order of Tribunal. The said order stood further modified by Ext.P3 and rectified by Ext.P4, extending credit of advance tax paid by the petitioner.

4. The Tribunal in the appeal against the block assessment had found that, insofar as the block assessment had taken into account the assessment against Long Term Capital Gain, the said amount ought to be separately assessed. Pursuant to the said directions, Ext.P5 order was issued. While issuing the said order, interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C were also imposed. Later, the said order was rectified by Ext.P6 order, by noticing that the credit of Rs.1,00,000/- was already given in the block assessment order and cannot be extended for the assessment year 1995-1996 as completed by Ext.P5. The interest also stood enhanced.

5. Petitioner submitted Ext.P8 appication seeking waiver of interest. The said application stood rejected by Ext.P10.

6. It is in the said circumstances that, the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

7. I have heard Smt.Divya Ravindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

8. Smt.Divya Ravindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, straight away points out that, though the application for waiver was for all the years, she is only pressing for waiver with respect to 1995-96 and 1999-00. Smt.Divya Ravindran with reference to Ext.P7 notification issued by the Government points out that, as regards, the two assessment years for which, waiver was sought for, her case squarely follows under Clause (d) of Para 2 of the notification and it was only on account of extraordinary/unavoidable circumstances that returns could not be filed within the prescribed period. Therefore, she points out that the rejection of the claim by Ext.P10 was without any basis.

9. On the other hand, Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department, points out with reference to the due date for filing of return for the year 1995-96 that, petitioner was not entitled for the benefits claimed. As regards, the subsequent year 1999-00 also, it is pointed out that, though t