SHANTHI HATCHERIES Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent in F.No.2006 (130) 2000-2001, to quash the impugned order dated 28.1.2003 and to direct the Respondent to grant relief for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is a Partnership Firm and is engaged in the business of poultry farming and hatcheries. The relevant assessment years are 1996-97 and 1997-98 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1996 and 31.03.1997. For all the years, the Petitioner filed income tax returns and claimed deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same were accepted under Section 143(1)(a), thereby the Petitioner enjoyed the reliefs under Section 80 IA of the said Act viz. (1) for the assessment year 1996-97, Rs.83,844/- and (2) for the assessment year 1997-98, Rs.1,51,145/-. Later the Assessing Officer sent a show cause notice under Section 154 of the said Act, stating that the deduction was given wrongly and directed the Petitioner to send objections to the show cause notice. The Petitioner also sent a reply dated 27.5.1999 and claimed deduction under Section 80 JJ of the said Act, which was rejected on the ground that the assessee did not claim relief in the returns filed, in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court CIT Vs. Shri Venkateswara Hatcheries P Limited, 1999 237 ITR 174 which was rendered on 24.3.1999 reversing the earlier judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 174-ITR-231. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the said Act viz. (1) for the assessment year 1996-97, Rs.11,226/- and (2) for the assessment year 1997-98, Rs.44,724/-. Aggrieved by the order of levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, the Petitioner filed a waiver petition to the Respondent, contending that as per the Board Circular in F.No.400/234/95-IT(B) dated 23.5.1996, which squarely covers the facts of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to waiver of interest levied under Section 234B and 234C of the Act. However, the Respondent, without considering the real scope of the said Circular, by the impugned order, rejected the waiver petition. Hence, these Writ Petitions have been filed for the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that once the Honourable Supreme Court declares law, it is binding on all the assessees and merely because it is not assessee's own case, it is not correct to say that only the assessee, falling within the jurisdiction of the High Court whose order has been reversed by the Honourable Supreme Court, can claim waiver of interest and that during the relevant accounting period, there was no contra judgement and later, on the basis of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the Petitioner was subjected to higher tax and that the liability which arose subsequently was beyond the control of the Petitioner and hence, the Petitioner could not be penalized.