G.K. Nair vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

P. Shanmugam, J.—The petitioner is an income tax-assessee. For the assessment year 1993-94, by exhibit P-1 order interest u/s 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961, towards delayed remittance of advance tax was levied. The petitioner''s appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment was partly allowed. Consequently, revised order giving effect to the appellate order was issued (exhibit P-2) dated October 22, 1996, by the Deputy Commissioner. Interest u/s 234B of the Act was also revised. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application exhibit P-3 dated November 5, 1997, to waive the interest before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. He had also filed a revision u/s 264 of the Act before the Commissioner on December 8, 1998, against exhibit P-2 order. The Commissioner of Income Tax by the impugned order exhibit P-6 rejected the petition as inadmissible. According to the Commissioner, the assessment order in which the demand arose, has been the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax held that he cannot statutorily interfere with the levy of interest. The original petition is against this order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision u/s 264 ,of the Act is maintainable against any order by a subordinate officer and that his appeals were against the assessment orders. He could not have raised the issue of interest and the same could be raised only before the revisional authority. I am unable to accept the said stand. The order in appeal before the appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal comprises the order relating to the interest u/s 234B of the Act. It is an integral part of the assessment and appellate orders as admitted in the original petition itself. Therefore, a statutory revision u/s 264 of the Act cannot be sustained against the interest. However, the petitioner has preferred a waiver application exhibit P-3 by invoking the powers of the Commissioner. The said application is still pending. In the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. However, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to pursue his waiver application exhibit P-3, this original petition is disposed of.