9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not an order under that provision but only a communication, unless, of course, reliable cogent material is produced by the appellant to denounce the credibility of Ext.P3(b). That document expresses the decision of the CBDT and contains directions to the Chief Commissioners and Directors General of Income Tax requiring compliance of the decision contained in that order. It is a statutory order. There is no way to escape from that legal position. Hence, we repel the plea of the appellant that it is not Ext.P3(b) that would apply. That Ext.P3(b) order of CBDT was communicated to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, is beyond any pale of doubt because what the appellant has produced as Ext.P3(b) is nothing but the photostat copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akrishnan, J. 1. Appellant impugns the dismissal of his writ petition challenging an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; 'Act' for short. 2. Appellant sold an item of property. The computation of capital gains referable to that transaction resulted in an assessment order, leading to, among other things, consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. He applied before the Chief Commissioner seeking waiver of interest so levied. That was turned down. It stands confirmed by the learned single Judge through the impugned judgment. 3. It is pleaded on behalf of the appellant that he was eligible to the benefit of Ext.P3(a) notification dated 23. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e failed to pay the tax on long term capital gains. For the reasons stated in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge held that the assessee's case is not an instance where the return of income was not filed, due to unavoidable circumstances, which is the context taken into account by clause 2(d) of the notification and that the assessee had filed a return disclosing the sale of landed property in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year; but had not returned any liability to taxes on capital gains. We agree with such finding of the learned single Judge. We affirm it. 6. The plea on behalf of the appellant that Ext.P3 (b) does not evidence an order under Section 119 (2)(a) is unsustainable for reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court by tapering down the appellant's liability; at least by ordering partial waiver of the interest component. Grant of waiver is a statutory matter. The Chief Commissioners cannot exercise that power except in accordance with directions which are issued by the CBDT. When the regulatory mechanisms in a fiscal legislation govern a situation; that cannot be visited in exercise of power under Article 226 and appellate jurisdiction through an intra-court appeal since that would be in defeasance of the statutory impact of a fiscal legislation in the nature of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An equitable remedy cannot be carved out in defeasance of; and eroding the statutory situation. No such plenary power rests with the High Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
