9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettlement Commission under Section 245-C of the Income Tax Act. The case was processed and ultimately, the Settlement Commission passed an order on 16.7.2002, fixing the total income at Rs.27,75,783/-. On the question of payment of interest chargeable under Sections 139(8), 215 and 217 of the Income Tax Act for the 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, the Settlement Commission waived 50% of the interest, taking note of the circumstances under Rules 117-A and 40 of the Income Tax Rules. However, for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97, the Settlement Commission rejected the plea on the ground that the order of the C.B.D.T. dated 23.5.1996 were not attracted. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. He further pointed out that the Settlement Commission had not given any reason while restricting the waiver to 50%. Consequently, placing reliance on the decision reported in CIT v. Smt.G.A. Samanthakamani [2003] 259 ITR 215 (Mad) he stated that the order of the Settlement Commission was not sustainable in law. He also stated that the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Commissioner for waiver. However, the same was rejected by the Commissioner by order dated 19.5.2002, on the ground that the Settlement Commission, the first respondent herein, had already exercised its mind on the matter. Thus, the petitioner prays for setting aside of the order to grant the relief. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the additions made by the Settlement Commission were not anticipated; that there was an estimation of cost of construction of the residential property. He submitted that the estimation or addition on the total income was purely on the ground of the rejection of the explanation or on estimate. In the circumstances, he submitted that the case merited a waiver of interest under Sections 234-A, 234-B and 234-C. 6. Learned counsel pointed out that the order of the first respondent except for stating that the petitioner had no case for seeking waiver in terms of the CBDT order dated 23.5.1996, failed to assign reasons; in the circumstances on the sole ground of perfunctory order passed, the writ petition deserves to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
