Skip to content


C.R. Nagappa Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 3319 and 3320/1970
Judge
Reported in[1974]97ITR459(KAR); [1974]97ITR459(Karn)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 215; Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 40 and 40(5)
AppellantC.R. Nagappa
Respondentincome-tax Officer and anr.
Appellant AdvocateK. Srinivasan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, Adv.
Excerpt:
- workmens compensation act, 1923 [c.a. no. 8/1923]. section 30; [k. ramanna, j] accident claim appeal against fastening of liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant/injured - issue of insurance policy by the appellant in favour of respondent no.3 was in force as on the date of accident-transfer of vehicle from respondent 3 in favour of respondent no.2 no intimation of transfer to insurance company held, the appellant as insurer of the vehicle, should not be benefited or immuned from liability to pay compensation to the victim of the accident, for the mistake committed by the insured and the victim of the accident should not be penalised and he cannot be denied his right to recover the compensation from the insurer. therefore, appellant/insurance..........for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, respectively. on the said contention, the commissioner has stated that rule 40 of the rules does not provide for waiving the interest on such ground or circumstance. 6. both the reasons of the commissioner are assailed by sri srinivasan before me. 7. reference to clause (5) of rule 40 of the rules makes it clear that thecommissioner can reduce or waive the interest payable under section 215of the act in any case where he considers that there are circumstancesjustifying for such reduction or waiver. the petitioner stated that he waswaiting for the decision of the supreme court. before that decision, hethought it was not necessary to include the minors' income in his estimatesof advance tax. can it be said that such a cause or contention falls.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. Since common order is challenged in these two petitions, they shall stand disposed of by this order.

2. The order challenged herein is an order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the said order, the Commissioner dismissed the two revision petitions preferred by the petitioner against the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Act for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69.

3. The facts, which are not now in dispute, may briefly be stated. The petitioner filed his estimate of advance tax payable by him on March 15, 1967, for the year 1967-68 and on March 15, 1968, for the year 1968-69. In the estimates he did not include the income of his minor sons. It is notdisputed that the said income is to be assessed in the hands of the petitioner. It was not for the first time that he made such estimates. Even for the year 1962-63 he did the same thing. The authority said that the minors' income should be assessed in his hands. Ultimately, the matter came by way of reference to this court. This court upheld the action taken by the authorities in the case. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of this court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 4, 1968, and the decision has been reported in C.R. Nagappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, : [1969]73ITR626(SC) .

4. For the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, since the petitioner paid the advance tax less than 75% of the tax determined on the basis of the regular assessment, the Income-tax Officer levied interest under Section 215 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred two revision petitions under Section 264.

5. Before the Commissioner, the judgment of the Supreme Court in V. D. M. RM. M. RM. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, : [1969]74ITR183(SC) was cited in support of the petitioner's contention that it was not obligatory for him to include the income of his minor sons in the estimates of advance tax. The Commissioner has stated that the said decision cannot be applied to the case on hand. The second contention urged before the Commissioner was relating to the justification for not including the minors' income in the estimates, since the same question was pending before the Supreme Court in the case, C.R. Nagappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax. It is not disputed that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case was pronounced on September 4, 1968, and the estimates of advance tax were filed on March 15, 1967, and March 15, 1968, for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, respectively. On the said contention, the Commissioner has stated that Rule 40 of the Rules does not provide for waiving the interest on such ground or circumstance.

6. Both the reasons of the Commissioner are assailed by Sri Srinivasan before me.

7. Reference to Clause (5) of Rule 40 of the Rules makes it clear that theCommissioner can reduce or waive the interest payable under Section 215of the Act in any case where he considers that there are circumstancesjustifying for such reduction or waiver. The petitioner stated that he waswaiting for the decision of the Supreme Court. Before that decision, hethought it was not necessary to include the minors' income in his estimatesof advance tax. Can it be said that such a cause or contention falls outside the scope of Rule 40(5) of the Rules. I think not. The Commissionerought to have considered that cause. The Commissioner has committed anerror in stating that the ground urged cannot fall within Rule 40 of the Rules.

8. Since I have decided to remit the case, I think it is unnecessary toconsider the validity of the first contention urged, viz., that it was notobligatory for the petitioner to include the minors' income in his estimatesof advance tax. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge the samebefore the Commissioner.

9. In the result, these petitions are allowed, the order impugned is setaside with a direction to the Commissioner to restore the revision petitionsof the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in thelight of the observations made in this order. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //