Allowed

M/S.Premier Marine Products v. the Commissioner of Incomt Tax

Madras HC5 Jan 2017WP/42018/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Commissioner failed to consider conditions under section 220(2)(A) before rejecting a waiver petition. An opportunity to be heard was granted, and the petition was allowed with a direction to pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was allowed; the Commissioner of Income-tax was directed to pass fresh orders after granting an opportunity to the petitioner.

M/S.Premier Marine Products Vs the Commissioner of Incomt Tax — Income Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 05.01.2017

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.No.42018 of 2002

¶6

M/s. Premier Marine Products,
3/284, Muttukadu Road,
Neelangarai, Chennai-41. ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax,
Chennai-VI.
2. Income-tax Officer,
Business Ward IV (3) ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in C.No.6601(24)/ 2001-02/VI dated 11.7.2002 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to grant waiver of interest under section 220 (2A) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

¶8

Petitioner : Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn

¶9

Respondents : Mr.J. Narayanaswamy

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 11.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting a petition for waiver of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act .

¶12

Mr.Quadir Hoseyn appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

We find from a perusal of the order of the impugned order that the first respondent has not taken into account the satisfaction of the conditions set out under section 220(2)(A) of the Act which is vital to the adjudication of the petition for waiver. Mr. Narayanaswamy, learned Standing Counsel for the Department does not have any objection to the grant of opportunity in this regard. In these circumstances, we allow the Writ Petition and direct the Commissioner of Income Tax to pass orders afresh on the petition for waiver of interest under Section 220 (2) of the Act after granting opportunity to the petitioner herein. The petitioner may place all the materials that are necessary to substantiate his case before the authority. No costs.

¶15

In view of the long distance of time involved, the
petition may be taken up for hearing and disposal of within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/
Assistant Registrar
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax,
Chennai-VI.
2. Income-tax Officer,
Business Ward IV (3)
+1cc to Mr.I.Narayanasamy, Advocate SR.No.1896
W.P.No.42018 of 2002
SDR 24.04.2017

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Premier Marine Products v. the Commissioner of Incomt Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Premier Marine Products v. the Commissioner of Incomt Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Sundaram Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the

M/S.Chennimalai Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Vs St.Industries Promotion Corpn.

P.Devaki Vs Mr.E.D.Gajapathy

Union of India Rep by the Vs M/S.Ganapathy Smelters Ltd.

R.Maheswaran Vs 1.THE Dt.Collector, Coimbatore

Tn Cable T.v.Operators Vs S/T.N. Rep by Its Secretary