9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by the first respondent dated 19.09.2016 for the assessment year 2003-2004 and for a direction to the first respondent to waive interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 220(2) and Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. This Court, on 18.07.2017, elaborately heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and passed the following order:- "Heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the proceedings of the first respondent - the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-III, dated 19.09.2016, by which, the application for waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 5 of the Rules framed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submit the very same argument would hold good so far as the levy of interest under Rule 5 of the said Rules is concerned. The contention raised is that though, in the impugned order, the first respondent stated that a personal hearing was granted on 21.03.2016 and on 24.03.2016, such hearing was given by the predecessor, who was the then Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-III and not the present Chief Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order. Thus, the argument appears to be as if the person, who heard the petitioner, had not decided the matter, but a different officer in the rank of Chief Commissioner has passed the impugned order. 7. To this extent, this Court is inclined to issue notice to the respondents to enable the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who has passed the impugned order. The legal principle is that the person who hears must decide. Therefore, by applying the said principle to the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to send back the matter for fresh consideration before the first respondent, on the plea for waiver of interest under Section 220(2) and Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order in so far as rejecting the petitioner's request for waiver of interest under Section 220(2) and Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration, who shall afford ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
