S. PANKAJAM Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A batch of writ petitions have been filed by the family members and partners of a group of organisations having different partnership firms and companies and businesses in respect of their assessments for the years 1990 -91, 1991 -92, 1992 - 93 and 1993 -94.

(2.) THE short facts, for consideration, are that there were disputes among the partners and family members. They were all partners in various partnership concerns as well as directors in the companies, shareholders in the companies and as there were two groups in respect of business concerns, there were loggerheads between them and as the accounts were not finalised the returns for the partnership organisations were not finalised and filed. Consequently, as per the then provision available, without the contribution from the partnership firms, the accounts of the individual could not also be finalised nor the returns filed. Therefore, they have failed to file the returns in time. Pending these disturbances and books were seized, and thereafter, since the account books were also under the custody of the IT Department, they could not further file returns for the year 1993 -94, which was the contention raised by the petitioners. Subsequently after raid, they have sought for notice under s. 148 of the Act and as per notice, they have submitted their returns and the returns have been accepted, assessments completed and no penalty was levied. Naturally, in view of the delay in filing returns, they were bound to pay interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. As far as the claim made by the IT Department is concerned, they had to pay, but, as per the provisions under the CBDT Circular F. No. 234C of the Act. As the petitioners would claim that they were for the reasons beyond their control, they were prohibited from finalising the accounts, and hence, waiver should have been given to them. These writ petitions have been filed on the rejection made by the authority concerned from the levy of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. All the writ petitions are commonly filed on the same ground in respect of all the petitioners.

(3.) MR . R. Sathiamoorthy, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the IT Department has filed detailed counters in all the cases and specifically pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as claimed by them as waiver of interest will be only attracted if the conditions prescribed in the circular are followed and if it is available to the concerned petitioners, and, therefore, they have no case at all for challenging the order. At the same time, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the IT Department fairly brought to the notice of this Court the subsequent order past has been rejected because the Board had not issued this direction earlier, such petition may be reconsidered and decided in accordance with this order. If any petition in the past was allowed in accordance with the orders under s. 119 guidelines contained in this order. As per the new circular, it has superseded all the earlier circulars, and, therefore, they claimed the order under the earlier circular is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.