P. SUDHAKARAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting a petition filed under Section 220(2A) of the Income -tax Act, seeking waiver of interest due on delayed payment of tax, with respect to the assessment year 1988 -89. The petitioner filed return for the said year declaring a total income of Rs. 59,410. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on a total income of Rs. 5,51,190, and the petitioner conceded additional income of Rs. 4,91,769, to make up discrepancies in the credit balance in the books of account. The assessment resulted in a demand of Rs. 3,50,106, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 3,61,891. The interest charged under Sections 139(8) and 217 were waived to the extent of 50 per cent by the first respondent, thereby reducing the demand to Rs. 3,11,502. The petitioner paid the amount in various instalments. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer, vide proceedings dated 25 -10 -2000 levied interest under Section 220(2) amounting to Rs. 1,67,453 which was later reduced to Rs. 1,08,982. Ext. P4 petition was filed seeking to waive imposition of the said amount as interest leviable under Section 220(2).

(2.) UNDER Section 220(2A) the assessee has to satisfy the following conditions:

(3.) THE learned Counsel urges a further contention that the Commissioner has totally failed to consider the question regarding condition No. (2) enumerated above. In fact, the Commissioner has narrated the history of the assessment and background of the default. It is mentioned that against a total income of Rs. 5,51,170 assessed, the assessee had initially declared an amount of Rs. 59,410 only. It is also evident that a waiver of 50 per cent on the interest due under Sections 139(8) and 217 was allowed. Further, payment of the tax amount in instalments was allowed. From these facts alone it could not be said that the default occurred due to any circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee. However, relying on the decision of this Court in G.T.N. Textiles v. Dy. CIT : [1996] 217 ITR 653, the first respondent found that all the three conditions are cumulative and unless all of them are satisfied, waiver of interest could not be allowed under Section 220(2A). Since there is a clear finding that the condition No. (1) has not been satisfied in this case, the failure to consider condition No. (2) is not of consequence. Hence, I am inclined to concur with the finding that the assessee is not entitled to get a waiver under Section 220(2A).