IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Hon ble Sri Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and Hon ble Sri Justice ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.46877 OF 2016 Between: Sri Subhash Neemkar (HUF), h.No.7-1-276/9, neemkar Nagar, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad Petitioner Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Incharge) Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents For Petitioner : Sri M. Venkatram Reddy For Respondents : Smt. K. Kiranmayee 2 VRS, J & AKS, J WP No.46877 of 2016 HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.46877 OF 2016 ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J) petitioner has come up with above writ petition challenging rejection of his application for waiver of interest under Section 234A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ). 2. Heard Mr.M.Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs.K.Kiranmayee, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 3. Under Section 234A of Act, Assessee is liable to pay simple interest @ 1% for every month, whenever return of income either under Section 139(1) or 139(4) or return of income in response to notice under Section 142(1) of Act is furnished after due date. Act does not contemplate waiver of any interest. 4. However, Section 119 (1) of Act enables Board to issue orders, instructions and directions to Income Tax authorities for proper administration of Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 119 of Act makes it clear that instructions issued by Board may also include instructions for relaxation of any of provisions indicated in Clause (a) to Sub-Section (2). One of Sections included in Clause (a) to sub-Section (2) of Section 119 of Act is Section 234A & B. 5. It appears that Board issued circular dated 26.06.2006, permitting Commissioner to waive interest under Section 234A & B of Act under certain contingencies. contingencies under which interest can be waived, are found in clauses (a) to (d) of Para-2 of CBDT Circular dated 26.06.2006. 3 VRS, J & AKS, J WP No.46877 of 2016 5. Unfortunately, case of petitioner does not appear to fall under any one of four clauses. Therefore, view taken by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, prima facie, appears to be correct. 6. However, we do not wish to pronounce final opinion on merits, as petitioner has effective alternative remedy as against original order of assessment. 7. As against original order of assessment, first appeal was filed and same was rejected. If petitioner takes up first appeal on further appeal before Tribunal and succeeds as against original order of assessment, question of interest may not arise at all. Therefore, leaving it open to petitioner to pursue his remedies as against original assessment order, writ petition is dismissed. 8. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to return original impugned order to petitioner. V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J October 26, 2017 KTL < . Subhash Neemkar (HUF) v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad and another