JACOB VARGHESE Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging exhibit P7 whereunder the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax has rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of interest levied under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for belated payment of income-tax for the assessment year 1985-86. Counsel contended that the petitioner's income was mainly from a partnership firm in the form of bar hotel.

(2.) 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 Commissioner of Income-tax, instead of considering the matter by himself under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act referred to the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax and dismissed the claim.

(3.) Standing counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the Commissioner has not sent any report but has forwarded the report from the Assessing Officer which contained only the factual position pertaining to the petitioner's conduct. Even though the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishan Lal v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 85 wherein the Supreme Court has held that a quasi-judicial authority considering the claim under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, should consider the matter independently, and the decision should be rendered through a speaking order. On going through exhibit P-7, I find the Chief Commissioner has not gone by any opinion of any lower authority. On the other hand, he has collected the facts pertaining to the petitioner from the assessment records through the Assessing Officer which was routed through the Commissioner and decided the matter by himself. The 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 exhibit P7, based on which the petitioner's application was rejected, I do not think there is any justification to interfere with exhibit P7. The O.P. is therefore dismissed but without costs.