Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Bosch Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 20 August, 2014

                           -1 -
                                         WP.No.48496/2013



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

         WRIT PETITION No.48496/2013 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:

BOSCH LIMITED
P.O. BOX NO.3000
HOSUR ROAD, ADUGODI
BANGALORE-560 030
REPRESENTED BY ITS
JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. SOUMITRA BHATTACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI T. SURYANARAYANA FOR M/S. KING & PATRIDGE,
    ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-LTU
       JSS TOWERS, 100 FT RING ROAD
       BANASHANKARI III STAGE
       BANGALORE-560 085

2.     CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-LTU
       JSS TOWERS, 100 FT RING ROAD
       BANASHANKARI III STAGE
       BANGALORE-560 085              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, SR. STANDING COUNSEL)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 10.07.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR
                                       -2 -
                                                            WP.No.48496/2013



WAIVER OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION                            234C    FOR    THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 10.7.2013 (Annexure-J) passed by the Chief Commissioner (LTU), Bangalore, rejecting the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. I have heard Sri K.P. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.V. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned order.

3. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the consideration made by the Chief Commissioner is vitiated being contrary to the Board's order dtd. 26.06.2006 (Annexure-B) inasmuch as the Chief Commissioner in para 3.1 of the impugned order has observed that the Board's

-3 -

order for waiver of interest will not apply to business turnover. He submitted that the Board's order would apply to any income chargeable to income tax other than "Capital Gains". However, Sri K.V. Aravind, learned standing Counsel supported the impugned order.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that several other observations made in the course of the impugned order are also factually not correct. He submitted that the observation of the Chief Commissioner that the petitioner had paid less advance tax during the year in question compared to the previous year, is factually not correct. He further submitted that the substantial rise in the business income during the last quarter of the Financial Year 2009-10 was neither anticipated nor was in the contemplation of the assessee.

5. On the facts of the case, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioner for waiver of interest is not properly considered by the Chief Commissioner. The observation that the Board's order dtd. 26th June 2006 does not apply to business turnover is not correct. Hence, I deem it

-4 -

appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Chief Commissioner, Bangalore for reconsideration in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

Petition disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE BNS