SAURASTRA AGENCIES PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by Messrs Saurastra Agencies (P.) Ltd. impleading the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, and the Commissioner of Income-tax praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, their men and agents to recall and/or rescind the order dated October 31, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-II, under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act and further commanding the Commissioner to rehear the application after giving sufficient and adequate opportunity of adducing records in respect of such application on the ground that the exercise of the power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 220(2A) of the said Act is a quasi-judicial exercise of power and, as such, the Commissioner of Income-tax acted without jurisdiction in not exercising his jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions thereof.

(2.) It appears from the order dated October 31, 1989, that the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-II, P-7, Calcutta, has found that the conditions precedent for the exercise of discretion for the waiver of interest under Section 220(2) are not satisfied. The petitions filed under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been rejected. It has been found that Section 220(2A) of the said Act, was inserted with effect from October 1, 1984, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, and that the power of the Commissioner to waive interest chargeable under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only in respect of the levies made after October 1, 1984. It has further been found that the interest for the assessment years 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1973-74 was levied prior to October 1, 1984, that is, before Section 220(2A) was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has, therefore, been concluded that the petition under Section 220(2A) of the said Act filed by the assessee-company in respect of such levies cannot be considered.

(3.) Mr. Anupam Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has strongly assailed the impugned order on the ground that the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 220(2A) of the said Act, is a quasi-judicial exercise of power and, as such, the Commissioner of Income-tax acted without jurisdiction in not exercising his jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions thereof.