9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e where tax has been paid relying on the judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court and that subsequently, the liability got increased on account of reversal of the judgment relied on by the assessee. Having closely perused the assessee's applications no ground raised by the petitioners, which can be traced to Clause(d) of the notification dated 23.05.1996 also evident from the orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revision Case filed by the Revenue, a Division Bench of this Court reversed the appellate orders, following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in K.S. Ramakrishnan, P.K. Narayanan Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax (223 ITR 209). 3. This resulted in an additional demand of tax and interest by Ext.P3. Petitioner thereupon paid the tax due and thereupon, submitted Ext.P4 application cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant assessment year is 1998-1999. Except that Ext.P2 is the petition for waiver, which was rejected by Ext.P4 order, facts are similar in all these cases. When the writ petition was taken up, counsel for the petitioner contended that what is claimed by the petitioners in these cases, is the benefit of clause (d) of the notification dated 23.05.1996 as clarified by order dated 30.01.1997, which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 234B or section 234C and the Chief Commissioner or Director-General is satisfied that this is a fit case for reduction or waiver of such interest." 7. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. 8. Clause (d) which is relied on, is applicable in a case where tax has been paid relying on the judgment of the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also evident from the orders passed by the respondents rejecting the applications. Further, in these orders also, no reference is made to any contention relying on the notification is neither noticed nor dealt with. Therefore, before the respondents, the petitioners did not establish a case covered by Clause (d) of the notification to contend that a claim under Clause (d) has been wrongly rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
