ANTO NITTO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner challenges exhibit P3, an order passed by the first respondent on an application made by the petitioner for waiver of interest as provided under section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is seen that by exhibit P2 application made by the petitioner for waiver, he requested the respondents to waive the interest liability of Rs. 8,54,476. That application is seen rejected by exhibit P3 order. It is also seen from the pleadings that subsequently, the whole interest liability of the petitioner was satisfied by appropriating the amounts from out of Rs. 18,06,402 remitted by the Corporation of Cochin which was due to the petitioner in a land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) In exhibit P3, mainly two reasons are stated. The first reason stated for rejection of the petitioner's application is that the petitioner did not produce any proof that he had no other business or source of income. It is also stated that there has not been any co-operation extended to the Department during the recovery proceedings.

(3.) In so far as the absence of any other business or source of income is concerned, first of all, the respondents themselves have no case that the petitioner had any other business or source of income. It is also the admitted case of the respondents that the entire properties of the petitioner are under attachment and that the interest liability of the petitioner was satisfied from out of the compensation amount remitted by the Corporation of Cochin. These facts, in my view, prima facie substantiate the case of the petitioner that he had no business or source of income and that payment of interest as demanded, would cause genuine hardship.