Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Waiver of interest u/s 220 (2A) required co-existence of three condition mentioned therein: HC

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 1016
Case Name
Jitendra M. Doshi Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 (Bombay High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Jitendra M. Doshi Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 (Bombay High Court)

In the abovementioned matter HC observed that all three conditions mentioned in section 220 (2A) were not co-existed and hence writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Writ petition was filed by legal representative of the assessee challenging the order passed by CCIT rejecting application for waiver of interest u/s 220 (2A) which provides discretionary powers to the CCIT to waive or reduce the interest levied on delayed payment of tax.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after a search, assets like gold bars, jewellery, investments and cash aggregating to Rs.71,35,730/- were seized. After completion of the assessment petitioner applied to AO to encash the seized investment and adjust the proceeds towards the tax demand. Later on, petitioner reiterated request and further requested AO to sell the gold and other jewellery that had been seized. AO did not take steps to dispose of the seized assets and adjust them against the tax demands therefore, petitioner suffered losses on account of interest. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application seeking a waiver of interest levied u/s 220(2A) which was rejected by the impugned order. It was submitted that the financial position of the petitioner at the time of seeking waiver was important and not the petitioner’s financial position at some earlier point in time. Petitioner was not required to file any wealth tax.  CCIT did not apply the correct parameters for considering application u/s 220(2A). Reliance was placed on Chander Prakash Jain vs CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 37 (Allahabad) to submit that where FDRs, Vikas Patras seized from an assessee were not encashed despite a request from the assessee, interest was ordered to be paid on the same. On the other hand, department argued that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order were borne out from the material on record, and there was no case for granting any waiver. Pre-conditions for exercising powers under Section 220(2A) were not satisfied in this case.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.