9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order, the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition with the following observation: "7. Had such refunds been paid in time, he submits that the same would have been utilized by them to settle their tax demands earlier and in time. This submission would hold no water in the present case, seeing as the demand of tax has been made on the admitted income offered by the petitioner to tax in the returns of income. 8. Had it been a case where the tax demand had arisen on account of additions/ disallowances to the admitted income, the position may have been viewed differently. However, seeing that the tax demand in the present case arises entirely from admitted income and the order of has assessed and attained fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The appellants have paid the entire amount including the penalty together with interest belatedly. There is no question of any interest on interest. Interest was consequential. It is submitted that in terms of Section 220(2A), if the authority is not satisfied with any of the conditions stipulated thereunder, he is empowered to reject the request of an assessee for waiver, as has been done in the present case. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. There is no dispute on facts. The appellants are under an erroneous belief that they have been wrongly foisted with interest on interest by the respondents under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. A rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that where any application is pending as on the 1st day of June, 2016, the order shall be passed on or before the 31st day of May, 2017. 10. The authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants have not satisfied the requirement of Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the amount demanded by the Department. The appellants cannot blame the income tax department for the delay in refund of the amounts to the company of which the appellants are directors. The appellants and the company are two separate and distinct assessees. Further, the amount was demanded based on search conducted. None of the limbs of Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been satisfied by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
