Calcutta High Court
Binani Industires Ltd. & Anr vs Chief Comm. Of Income Tax on 1 April, 2014
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 1950 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BINANI INDUSTIRES LTD. & ANR
Versus
CHIEF COMM. OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 1st April, 2014.
Appearance :
Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. C. M. Ghorawat, Adv.
...for the petitioners.
Mrs. Smita Das Dey, Adv.
...for the respondent.
The Court : The writ petitioner had filed an Income-tax return on 31st July, 1991 for the assessment year 1990-91. However, it had paid Income- tax of the aggregate sum of Rs.3,03,10,883/- by 3rd May, 1990. It may be noted here that the department assessed the Income-tax payable by the petitioners at Rs.2,80,17,905/-. The revenue charged interest under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act on the writ petitioner for delayed filing of its return for seven months commencing from 1st January, 1991 upto 31st July, 1991. The writ 2 petitioner had challenged such charge of interest by way of a writ petition which in view of a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High, was withdrawn for an adjudication to be made by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax by his order dated 14th May, 2002 directed that 50% of the interest charged under Section 234A was to be waived for the assessment year 1990-91. He went on to hold regarding the order of the Delhi High Court, that he was of the opinion he could not consider the same in passing an order under Section 119 (2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has placed the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reported in (2002) 254 ITR 755 (Dr. Prannoy Roy Vs. C.I.T. & Anr.). It appears from the facts of that case that the assessee therein had paid the tax within the assessment year but had filed his return after a delay of eleven months. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was of the opinion, that no interest would be payable in a case where tax has been deposited prior to the due date of filing the Income-tax return.
Mr. Khaitan submitted further that the decision of the Delhi High Court was carried up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which by its decision reported in (2009) 309 ITR 231 (Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Prannoy Roy & Anr.) upheld the said decision.
The case at hand comes squarely within the decision cited. The petitioners had paid the tax within the due date by which it was supposed to have filed its return though the filing of the return was delayed. 3
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There will be an order in terms of prayer (b) of the writ petition.
Since no affidavit has been filed, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondent.
The Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to the compliance with all requisite formalities.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) akb/