M.S.SHAH - (1.) Rule. Mr BT Rao, learned standing counsel for the revenue waives service of Rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.
(2.) What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure "O") passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat under Section 119 (2)(a) read with Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") granting partial waiver of interest under Section 234A of the Act and rejecting the petitioner's request for waiver of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.
(3.) The controversy centres around waiver of interest for assessment years 1992-93, 1993-93 and 1994-95. The interest was levied as under :- JUDGEMENT_191_TLGJ0_2004Html1.htm Original petitioner-Smt. Shantaben D Mistry, widow of late Mr Dahyabhai C Mistry, filed a petition for waiver of interest under the above provisions stating that her husband expired on 27.11.1989 leaving the petitioner and two married daughters as his survivors. The entire income of the deceased-husband was includible in her income and she was not aware of this position until October, 1993 and she started making up the accounts of the deceased-husband and arranging for payment of taxes. The returns for assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 were submitted on 5.11.1996. The petitioner paid all the taxes due amounting to Rs.22 lakhs and odd amount. The petitioner had filed returns of income voluntarily and she had paid a lot of taxes over the years and no taxes were due and only a part of the demand relating to interest was due. The original petitioner prayed for waiver in view of the following facts :- " (a) Mr DC Mistry expired on 27th November, 1989 at the sage of 78 years and prior to his death for 2 to 3 years he was in senile condition. He was uneducated and got frustrated as the business which he was running as a Managing Director in the name of Navjivan Udyog Mandir Pvt. Ltd. was not successful and the Company was defunct since 1989. (b) Both the petitioner and Mr Mistry shattered by the traumatic incident of car accident in which their son-in-law, Dr Ishvarlal Panchal expired on 16.07.87 at the age of 45 leaving his widow and three minor children. (c) The only source of income of the deceased was dividend from the group Companies. (d) The petitioner was aged more than 75 years. (e) After his death it came to the light of the legal heirs that, he did not attend to his tax matters and the income tax and wealth tax demands were pending from A.Y. 1986-87 onwards in his case and in the case of the petitioner and also in case of Navjivan Udyog Mandir Pvt. Ltd. and the charitable trust with which he was associated. (f) He was survived by his widow (the petitioner) and 2 daughters out of whom, one has become widow on account of death of her husband in car accident as pointed out in item (b) and there was nobody to look after the family as there was no male person, the elder daughter is not educated and the younger one, who is B.A., became a widow as stated earlier and was shattered and in depressed mental condition. (g) The petitioner (Smt. Shantaben) was a housewife. There was only one employee i.e. Shirubhai Mistri, who was assisting late D.C. Mistry and was looking after the accounts and tax matters. He abruptly left in 1988 leaving the mess. (h) The legal heirs made the payment of taxes out of the dividend income received from ASPW and group Companies from March 1990 onwards in respect of liabilities of the petitioner, late D.C. Mistry, Company and the trust. The aggregate tax payment was Rs.22,57,031/= and they could not file the returns of the above year till November 1996 and July 1997 as they could effect the payments only in October 1996. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing the returns and also the delay in payment of taxes was due to unavoidable circumstances including the grave trauma because of the death of her son-in-law and death of her husband. In fact, before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax passed the order under consideration, original petitioner Shantaben D Mistry expired leaving behind her one uneducated daughter and the other daughter who is a widow. After considering the aforesaid facts of the case, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat was of the view that the ends of justice would be met if interest under Section 234A of the Act is waived to the extent of 50% for assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. However, the Chief Commissioner declined to grant such waiver in respect of interest under Sections 234B and 234C on the ground that relevant clause (e) of para 2 of the Circular dated 23.5.1996 which confers the power of waiver on the Commissioner was only applicable to the waiver of interest under Section 234A and not to waiver of interest under Section 234B or Section 234C of the Act. Hence, this petition.;