Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.14135 OF 2021(T-IT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVAPRASAD ALVA K., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SON OF LATE K KRISHNA ALVA, LAW OFFICER (SENIOR) FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS, MANGALORE DIVISION, S P OFFICE PREMISES, MANGALORE - 575 001.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110 001.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL: TDS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR-1, VAAISHALI GHAZIABAD, UTTARPRADESH 201 010 .
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION OF THE R-1 DTD.19.2.2021 ANNXURE-H ON APPLICATION DTD.30.1.2021 ANENXURE-G FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR WAIVER OF LATE FEE LEVIED U/S 234E OF THE ACT BY THE R-2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner-Assessee is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the order dated 19.02.2021 a copy whereof is at Annexure-H which reads as under:
“Subject:- Waiver of late fee levied u/s 234E of the IT Act, 1961-regarding.
“Please refer to your letter dated 30th January 2021 on the above mentioned subject. In this regard attention is invited to Circular NO.7/2014 (copy enclosed) vide which CBTD has already ex-post facto extended the due date of filling of TDS/TCS statement to 31.3.2014 for a government detectors mapped to valid AIN for the following quarters, in order to reduce the genuine hardship of the government detectors.
i) FY 2012-13 - 2nd to 4th Quarter
ii) FY 2013-14 -1st to 3rd Quarter At present, there are no proposals to prescribe further guidelines for waiver off 234E fees under consideration.”
After service of notice, the Revenue having entered appearance through the learned Sr. Panel Counsel opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order; the counsel points out that regardless of the language of petitioner’s application dated 30.01.2021 a copy whereof is at Annexure-G, his prayer appears to be for the extension itself.
Learned Panel Counsel further submits that the interpretation placed by the Tax Officials on the said
application merits acceptance, they being the experts in the field notwithstanding it’s linguistics. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the subject application of the petitioner at para no.9 specifically reads as under:
“The Applicant respectfully submits that the delay in filing the 26Q returns was not willful and was unintentional. Due to the aforesaid constraints, circumstances, lack of proper knowledge, shortage of proper & qualified staff etc., the delay was caused. Besides, the office of the Applicant is a part of the Department of Prosecutions functioning under the Govt. of Karnataka. Therefore the Applicant hereby humbly requests the Hon’ble Chairman of CBDT to waive all the aforesaid Late Fee of Rs.1,85,400/- levied u/s 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice and also under natural justice.
By no stretch of imagination, the subject application can be construed as other than the one for waiver of late fee levied u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961; however, the answering respondent has construed the said application as being the one for extension of time when it is not; thus, this is a classic case of
non-application of mind and therefore, is vitiated and consequently, is liable to be voided.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; subject application is remitted to the respondents for consideration afresh; till consideration takes place and the result thereof is informed to the petitioner and four weeks lapse therefrom, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
All contentions are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Bsv