9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows : The petitioner under the orders passed by this court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 70 of 1971 deposited a sum of Rs. 11,49,946 with the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, being the difference of the cane price. The said deposit was made during the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otally waived and/or be not levied. The matter was dealt with by the Income-tax Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) who on the basis of rule 40(1) of the Income-tax Rules. (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", restricted the interest chargeable under section 215 for a period of eighteen months from April 1, 1972 to September 30, 1973. Thus, out of the interest of Rs. 3,75,795 a sum of Rs. 1,85, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y advance tax on the said amount of Rs. 11,49,964. The petitioner did not know that the said money would be refunded back to him and he had to pay any advance tax on the same. If the money was available with him by way of profit in the year 1972-73 he would have paid the advance tax. However, since the money was lying with the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, under the orders of this court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the conditions under rule 40(5) are satisfied in view of the decision in the case of CIT v. Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 216 (Bom). In view of my above observation, I think this is a fit case which should go back on remand to the Commissioner, who will exercise their discretion and pass an appropriate order. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
