The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, dismissed actor Suriya’s 2018 plea seeking a waiver of interest on delayed income tax payments, reported Bar and Bench.
The demand was originally raised in 2011 by tax authorities for the assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, following a search that was conducted at Suriya’s premises in 2010.
The actor had subsequently sought a waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act of 1961 and filed a case at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. When the waiver was denied by the tax authorities, Suriya had approached the Madras High Court in 2018.
The case was heard on Tuesday by Justice SM Subramaniam, who dismissed the actor’s plea after observing that the latter had not cooperated with the tax authorities when the payment demand was made.
Maintaining that Suriya is not responsible for the delay, that he had cooperated with the assessment proceedings, and that he had paid the tax as demanded in time, advocate S Raveekumar claimed that the actor has been facing harassment by the tax authorities. He also pointed out that while Suriya had received advances for films, these would be treated as income only for the year in which the project materialises.
Recommended
However, the court observed that the actor has not paid the amount for both the assessment years. Justice Subramaniam added that the conduct of the assessee during IT proceedings is vital for claiming waiver of interest and noted that, according to the authorities, Suriya had not cooperated during the process.
The court further noted that under Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, it has to be shown that payment of the amount would cause “genuine hardship” to the assessee, but Suriya had not provided any reason why the payment of interest would cause him any hardship.
The third condition that has to be satisfied for waiver of interest is proof that the default in payment of the amount was due to circumstances beyond the assesee’s control.
The court said Suriya had “not established all the three conditions stipulated in the provisions for the purpose of grant of waiver of interest,” and therefore, dismissed the writ petition filed by the actor.