2011 (9) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in this order, we are not inclined to examine the case law relied upon and answer any question on hypothetical basis - Matter remanded back to AO - It is open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 220 (2A) of the Act, if so advised and necessary before AO. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of
MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J. For Appellant: Mr. R.N. Mehta and Mr. Sunil Goyal, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. O R D E R M/s. Classic Paper Converters Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present writ petition for quashing of notices dated 23rd December, 2005 and 8th December, 2006 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), New Delhi and the rectification order dated 25th January, 2007, which was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... application for waiver of penalty under Section 273A of the Act has been upheld. It is, therefore, clear that the demands both on account of additional tax and penalty of Rs.2,59,240/- and Rs.2,96,643/- have to be paid by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner claims that after the assessment orders were passed, notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. However, the said notice of demand stood nullified once the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the additions. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. First Income-Tax Officer, [2001] 247 ITR 821 (SC). 6. The respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the said decision will only apply i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Act for rectification. 9. We have examined the order dated 25th January, 2007 and find that the order is non-speaking and non-reasoned. It does not deal with the various contentions and issues raised. The judgments referred to above have not been considered and examined. As noticed above, the petitioner has now contended that the demands were in fact paid. Another question which may arise is whether these demands were fully or partly paid and the effect of part payment, if any. As facts have not been discussed and stated in this order, we are not inclined to examine the case law relied upon and answer any question on hypothetical basis. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 25th January, 2007 is set aside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X