IN TEL HIGH COURT OF mHm PRADESH AT JABAL ' M.P No./ 0 l i92 PE TITIONER ‘ i Durga Prasad Verma. cmoou C/c Verma J'wellery Mart ’ ‘Jawahar Market, Bhiiaié, M.P.‘ -Ver susé av)’ i da Unon of Ini through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Ne Delhi Charman, enralrBoard of Dira Taxes, Aayakar Bhawan New Delh Commissioner of Income Ta Jabalpur’ Mt? Range I, Bal?ur, MQ Income Tax Off1cer, ’B' Wa ‘Bhilai, M.P. 6 ON FO US RESPOND$W§3 * / 0 2 o {F}; N: ( (V 43“ I PETITION UND% ABTIvIE 22/227 OF THE CONSTITUTI OF INDIA R A WRIT IN THE NATUmh OF MAWAM mTORAEI OE ANY 0m APPBOFRIAFE WRIT I PUH $ ‘ mgg V T9 w i ct c , i x - PO rd HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .Wjj P€titi_on N0. 3 104 of 1992 l’ETII‘IONER : ‘ Durga Prasad Verma. VERSUS gESPONDENE : Union oflndia & Others. Post for pronounmment der 0n ‘Qfaay o u, 200. of or f Agust 1 L Satish K. Agnihot Judge i ‘ <.»,. ,“ ,A._k«wi , .‘_i ,#,¥ W n g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR‘ Writ Petition N0. 3 104 of 1992 ETITIONER Durg‘a Prasad Verma. P VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Union of India & Others. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ggz Hon’ble s ri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Prasent: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate 'for the respondent N0. 310 5. I O R D E R (Delivered on . day of August, 2010) By this petitiOn, the petitioner ‘flrstly seeks a declaration to the effect that charge of interest under section 139(8) and section 217(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘l'he Act, 1961 ’) is without jurisdiction, unauthorized and illegal, secondly, refusal to waive the interest is against the Amnesty scheme, and thirdly, the demand notice dated 21.03.1988 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Income Tax Officer, Bhilai and the order dated 10.04.1989 (Annexure P/7) whereby‘thc application of the petitioner dated 26.04.1989 was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range—l, and subsequently, order dated 23110.1991 '(Annexure P/9) pasSed by the Commissioner, Income Tax, upholding the order passed by the Income Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax. ‘ The main grounds raised in this petition are that the charge of interest under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Act, 196] is without jurisdiction, unauthorized and illegal. The refusal towaive interest against solemn assurance of the Government as contained in various circulars ofthe Amnesty scheme is arbitrary and illegal. Shri Ashish, Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly questions the imposition of interest in the demand notice dated 21.03i1988 whereby in addition to the income tax payable, further interest under the provisions oi“ section 139 of i the Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs. 35,530/‘ and under the provisions of section 215 of the Act. 1961, a sum of Rs. 36,400l— have been added. He further submits that under the'scheme of ‘Amnestyi offered by Government of [ndia under various circulars issued during the year 1985 and 1986 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner had filed Income Tax Returns suo-moto for the assessment year 197]— 72 declaring the total income at Rs. 50,100 and paid the tax of Rs. 18,766 vide challan No. 13/6 dated 27.3.1987. The Income Tax Officer obtained approval from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and issued’notice under section 14‘8 of the Act, 196i. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 was completed and vide order dated 31.03.1988, assessment order was issued without any liability with regard to payment of interest on taxable income (Annexure P/3). HOWeVer, later on, a demand notice was issued under section 156 of the Act, 1961 for payment of interest l r undar section 139 and 217 of the Act, 1961 for a total amount of Rs. 71,930/- (Annexu’re P/4). Thus, the demand notice issued under the provisions of séction 156 of the Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction and authofity. He further submits that refusal to Waive interest under the normal provisions of Rule 4O of the income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules, 1962’)and 117—A of the Act, 1961 islillegal and arbitrary and no reasons have been recorded by the authority before declining to waive of interest. In the assessment order dated 31.03.1988 (Annexure P/3), no liability with regard to payment of interest has been fixed, thus, the petitioner is not liable tovpay any interest on the assessed ameunt in demand notice under section 156 of the Act, 1961. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Income ATax Department Vvould submit that the ease of the petitioner was not dealt with under the Amnesty Scheme and the petitioner has failed to question the finding recorded by the authority below that it is perverse or contrary to the material available on record. With regard to imposition of interest, the petitioner has n‘ot raised this point before the authorities at any stage, thus, he may not he permitted to be agitated in this petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India. The petitioner had filed an application for waiver of interest before the Income Tax Officer on 05.08.1988 which was decided by the deputy Commissioner oflncome tax on 04.04.1989 under Rule 40 of the gt) Rulea, 1962 and the Same was communicated to thE petitioner on 10.04.989 (nee /7). petioner, eafter f a un io 4 f t an der atd revision der sectn 26 o the Ac, 1961 agist the or de 18 e po d nt e go th the ti 04.04.99. Th etitiner id o rais the rund at noce un o 5 A 1 eal ad of demand der sectin 16 of the ct, 196 was illg n unauthorized. hus, te titioner ay pecled fr raising T h pe m be rud om ai un n thi ptin f tnton h the sd grod i s etio. In support o his conei, e relie on a in fte pre Court in izer d, . zdoo s deciso oh Sume Pf Lt v Mar Congressl mmissioer of Income T, Razp‘ur . -ech ' and Con ax v HiT Absives dz pss y a Divisio Bench oh Crt. ra Lt aed b n ftis ou rua of dcu h a n h h On pesl the oments filed in te cse o and, te arguments advce e counsel o the Iome T and by th fr nc ax ent s pt h iter ot ris t Departm merit acceance. As te petion had n aed a any stage eie bfe he me Ta, Officer fo th thr eor t Inco x or bere e t Cmm ne I Ta h Depuy oissioner, or the Commissior, ncome x that: te d isud un pns o sein th deman notice se der the rovisio f cto 156 of e ille d aut wa cont Act, 196] was gal an unhorized, as the same s rary e m ei smnt to th Anesty Scheme and withoutitheir bng any assese rder prio‘r o ssu of and notie. n the queion of refusl of o t ie dem c O st a waiver, te Commissiner of Inome Ta, i is order dated h o c x n h ur /) h th nd ame 23.10.1991 (Annexe P9 as considered at leng a c to the conclusi tt te cnsderation to waive of inteest the on ha h oi r in c r l ner h Am he h dy b ase of eturn fied ud te nesty Scme as alrea een b t In ax O- is n T dealt with y he come T fficerand there o error. hus, 5 SCC 609 ‘ ot 19/200, ecid on 22.02.201 se N 9 dde 0 1 Anxur P The ti thre, iled the Commissioner of Income Tax did not find any irregularity or error in refusal to waiVe‘the interest, by the aumorities below. This petition is predominantly under the provisions of Article 227 the Constitution of India invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. There is no justification to allow the writ petitioner‘to raise. a new contention (the instant one) at this stage. [See: Pfizer Ltd v. Mazdoor Congress (supra)]. On the question asto whether the impugned demand notice was without authority of law, the petitioner is not pelmitted to raise the said ground in this petition as this ground was not raised before the authorities below at any stage. ,Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise the ground of issue of demand notice being unauthorized or illegal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, if so advised. In the event, an application is made, the Commissioner L of Income Tax may consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate order on its own‘merit and perspective. /5r 1 There shall be no order asto costs/dl- h m i / . ‘ i sa’ush K udge Agm r , 7 .. Amit of