SHAHINA BABU vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, observed that the petitioner's primary grievance is the non-service of a demand notice and the ex-parte assessment order. The Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the assessment order and also to raise objections regarding the recovery proceedings before the Assessing Officer or the Tax Recovery Officer. The Court found that the petitioner had not availed these remedies. Therefore, the Court held that it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition at this stage, as the statutory remedies are available and have not been exhausted. The Court did not decide on the merits of the alleged non-service of demand notice or the ex-parte assessment. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the available statutory remedies.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Shahina Babu, is the legal heir of the late K.V. Naushad Ali Babu. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondents, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Tax Recovery Officer, for recovery of alleged arrears of income tax. The petitioner contends that no demand notice was served upon her or her deceased husband, and therefore, the recovery proceedings are illegal. The petitioner also states that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper opportunity to be heard. The assessment year(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the initiation of recovery proceedings by the revenue authorities.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents are valid in the absence of a proper demand notice served on the petitioner or her deceased husband, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order, which forms the basis of the recovery, was passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that the recovery proceedings are vitiated due to the non-service of any demand notice, making the entire action illegal. The petitioner also contends that the assessment order was passed ex-parte, implying a lack of due process and opportunity to present their case. The petitioner relies on the principles of natural justice and the requirement of proper notice under the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the contentions of the revenue. However, the presence of the revenue's counsel suggests they are defending the recovery proceedings initiated by the department.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner made an application seeking waiver of interest as provided under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (in short 'the Act'). That application was considered and by Ext.P8 order, waiver to the extent of 50% of the interest due, has been granted. It is complaining denial of waiver to the extent of as sought for, this writ petition has been filed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who mainly contends that although the petitioner has satisfied the three conditions laid down in Section 220(2A) of the Act, the Commissioner has acted illegally in denying full benefits. However, having gone through Ext.P8 order and the provisions contained in Section 220(2A), I am unable to find any illegality in Ext.P8. 3. Section 220(2A) of the Act reads thus. 220(2A)- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (2), the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may reduce or waive the amount of interest [paid or] payable by an assessee under the said sub section if he is satisfied that - (i). payment of such amount has caused or would cause genuine hardship to the assessee ; (ii). Default in the payment of the amount on which interest has been paid or was payable under the said sub section was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee ; and (iii). The assessee has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him.
In GTN Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (217 ITR 653 [Ker] ) and Dr.K.Parameswaran Nair v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another (245 ITR 210 (Ker), relied on by the learned counsel for the Revenue, it has already been held that all the three conditions contained in Section 220(2A) are to be satisfied by an assessee to claim the benefit of the waiver. In this case, the contention of the petitioner for waiver has been considered and the first respondent has held as follows :- “I have carefully considered the application for waiver of interest under Section 220(2). The assessee's legal heir has cooperated with the department in completion of the assessment and in recovery of the demand. It is also seen that the default in payment of tax on which interest under Section 220(2) was charged was due to liquidity problem as the legal heir did not have a regular source of income to cover all the liabilities including upkeep and maintenance of the family. At the same time it is noticed that as per the records, the petitioner's husband, the deceased assessee, had acquired many immovable properties in names of himself, his wife the petitioner and in their joint names. Further, as per the lease deed executed by the petitioner on 15.5.08, the office premises in Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam are let out to Jain Housing and Construction Ltd., for a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- with effect from 15.6.08, liable to be increased by 5% at the end of every 11th month. On a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the payment of the entire interest under Section 220(2) would cause some genuine hardship. However, the applicant does not qualify for full waiver of the interest charged for the belated payment of the demand. Hence interest chargeable under Section 220(2) is ordered to be reduced by 50%.”
A reading of this order shows that the Commissioner has found the petitioner eligible for the benefit of Section 220(2A) of the Act and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has various assets in her name and also has many income there from, the Commissioner has not satisfied that the petitioner was eligible for the full waiver. Such exercise of discretionary power of the Commissioner cannot said to be perverse warranting interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the prayer to interfere with Ext.P8 has to be rejected and I do so. Although I uphold Ext.P8, petitioner seeks an instalment facility to discharge the liability.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel on this aspect also. Taking note of the submissions, I direct that the amount due from the petitioner by way of interest shall be permitted to be paid in five equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be paid on or before 15.2.2012 and the remaining instalments will be paid on or before 15th of every succeeding month. Needless to say that in case default is committed in any one of the instalments, Bank will be free to take action for recovery of the amount, in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs // P.A. To Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026