9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders made on March 14, 1972, levied a sum of Rs. 6,000 as penalty for each year on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (" the Tribunal"), under section 250 of the Act which by its order dated March 7, 1973, allowed them and cancelled the penalties levied against him. Bat, on references made at the instance of the Revenue on that question, this court by its order made on April 21, 1978, in I.T.R.C. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1974 answered the same in its favour and against the petitioner. Agreeing with the said order of this court, the Tribunal then disposed of the appeals filed by the petitioner holding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, the Income-tax Officer had issued notices of demand to the petitioner and that is not rightly disputed by Sri Shivaram. On the appeals filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal cancelled the penalties which necessarily meant the cancellation of demands issued by the Income-tax Officer also. But that success was a short-lived one as the Tribunal itself later in conformity with the orders of this court in I.T.R.C. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1974 dismissed them and confirmed the penalties and notices of demand issued by the Income-tax Officer. The legal effect of the latter order made by the Tribunal was that the earlier notices of demand stood revived and became valid, legal and enforceable against the petitioner. In this view itself the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, Sri Sarangan also placed before me Circular No. 334 dated April 3, 1982 [1982] 135 ITR 10 (St) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and paragraph 2 of the same which is relevant for our purpose reads thus: "(ii) Where the assessment made originally by the Income-tax Officer is either varied or even set aside by one appellate authority but, on further appeal, the original order of the Income-tax Officer is restored either in part or wholly, the interest payable under section 220(2) will be computed with reference to the due date reckoned from the original demand notice and with reference to the tax finally determined. The fact that during an intervening period, there was no tax payable by the assessee under any operative order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the very first time and grant relief.
Whether the legal representatives of the petitioner should avail of the beneficial provision made in section 220(2A) of the Act or not is a matter for them to decide. But, as and when any application is made by them, have no doubt that the Commissioner will examine the same in its proper perspective and submit his recommendation to the Board which I have no doubt will deal with the same on merits.
In the light of my above discussion, I hold that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss these writ petitions and discharge the rule issued in the cases. But, in the circumstances of the cases, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
