RAFIQUE A. MALIK vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-I, MUMBAI AND 3 ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/1474/2006HC Bombay08 August 2006Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE, HON'BLE SHRI.JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated May 24, 2005, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Central). The Court restored the waiver applications to the file of the Chief Commissioner for a fresh examination of the petitioners' submissions. This decision was made in light of the fact that the mother of Rafique Malik had been granted waiver and the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in *Mohd. Yousuf's* case. The Court also noted the undertaking by the petitioners to deposit the requisite amount of interest without prejudice to their submissions. The operative direction was to reconsider the waiver applications. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Shri Rafique A. Malik, Aziza Rafique Malik, and Rafique A. Malik as trustee, filed three writ petitions challenging orders dated May 24, 2005, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central). These orders declined waiver of interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 1996-1997. The delay in filing returns and paying advance tax, approximately nine months to one year, was attributed to Rafique Malik's implication in the 'Shoes Scam', leading to his arrest and seizure of business books by the CID. The petitioners argued that their mother, Malek Sultan Tejani, was granted full waiver in similar circumstances, citing her husband's and son's arrest and business disruption.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax erred in declining waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 1996-1997, given the circumstances beyond the assessees' control. Assessee's contentions: The assessees argued that the circumstances leading to the delay in filing returns and paying advance tax were beyond their control due to the implication of Rafique Malik in the 'Shoes Scam', his arrest, and the seizure of business books. They contended that since their mother, Malek Sultan Tejani, was granted full waiver in similar circumstances, the same relief should be extended to them. They relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in *Mohd. Yousuf & anr. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & anr.* (235 ITR 329) for the principle of treating similarly situated persons alike. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the circumstances in the mother's case could not apply to the son and husband, who were in charge of the business and responsible for complying with the law. Alternatively, the Revenue agreed to a reconsideration of the waiver applications if the interest amount was paid in the interim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 220(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Writ Petition No.1474 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1474 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1474 of 2006 Shri Rafique A. Malik. .. .. Petitioner v/s. The Chief Commissioner of Income tax & ors. .. .. Respondents W I T H Writ Petition No.1475 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1475 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1475 of 2006 Rafique A. Malik. .. .. Petitioner v/s. The Chief Commissioner of Income tax (Central) & ors. .. Respondents W I T H Writ Petition No.1476 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1476 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1476 of 2006 Aziza Rafique Malik. .. .. Petitioner v/s. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) & ors. .. .. Respondents Mr.F.V.Irani with Mr.A.K.Jasani for petitioners. Mr.A.M. Kotangale with Mr.S.R.Chauhan for respondents. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 8th August 2006 DATED : 8th August 2006 DATED : 8th August 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L. Gokhale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L. Gokhale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L. Gokhale, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and we have looked into it. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. CNR No : HCBM020101592006 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:23

-2- 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1474 of 2006 is the son of late Smt.Malek Sultan Abdul Tejani. His daughter named Aziza has filed Writ Petition No.1476 of 2006 whereas Writ Petition No.1475 of 2006 is filed by Rafique A. Malik as the trustee of the estate of his deceased father. All these three Petitions seek to challenge the three orders all dated 24th May 2005 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) declining to grant waiver of the interest claimed by the Department under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. All these three matters are concerning the Assessment year 1996-1997 and it is not disputed that there was some delay to the extent of about nine months to one year in filing the return and/or paying the advance tax. Consequently the interest has been levied on all these three assessees. 4. It is material to note that the assessees are having an interest in the business known as Metro Shoes and it is the case of all the assesses that Rafique Malik was implicated in a controversy known as Shoes Scam. He was taken in custody as also his books of accounts by the CID. It is because of these circumstances beyond the control Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:23

-3- of the parties concerned that the return could not be filed and the advance tax could not be paid. It is also their case that the same plea was raised by their mother Malek Sultan Tejani and in her case she was granted full waiver. In fact the order passed in her case clearly mentions the fact of arrest of her son and her husband and that the entire business operations landed into difficulty. 5. Mr.Irani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the treatment given to the mother should be extended to the son, grand-daughter as well as her husband. In this behalf, he has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mohd. Yousuf & anr. vs. Mohd. Yousuf & anr. vs. Mohd. Yousuf & anr. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & anr. reported in 235 Commissioner of Income-tax & anr. reported in 235 Commissioner of Income-tax & anr. reported in 235 ITR page 329 ITR page 329 ITR page 329 which lays down that where the circumstances of the cases of the two petitioners, who were partners and brothers, were similar, there was no justification to adopt two different courses in the case of two brothers. 6. Mr.Kontangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that what happened in the case of the mother cannot apply to the son or to her husband who are Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:23

-4- in-charge of the business and there is no reason for them not to follow the requirements of law. In any case, Mr.Irani alternatively submits that there is a case for reconsideration and, therefore, the Chief Commissioner may be directed to look into the waiver applications afresh in the light of the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Mohd. Yousuf’s case (supra). Mr.Kontangale states that this course may be adopted, provided the amount of interest levied is paid by the petitioners in the meanwhile. 7. Mr.Irani has taken instructions and states that without prejudice to the submissions of the petitioners, they will deposit the requisite amount with the concerned Section of the Revenue. This will, of course, be subject to any adjustment to which the petitioners are entitled or which they have already been granted. 8. In the light of the aforesaid judgment and in the background of the fact that the mother of Rafique has been granted the waiver, we set aside the impugned orders all dated 24th May 2005 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) in the above three matters and restore the Waiver Applications to the file of the Chief Commissioner Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:23

-5- to examine the submissions of the petitioners afresh. 9. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:23 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →