9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on records, and there is no perversity. The decision in Chander Prakash Jain [ 2015 (5) TMI 687 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is based on peculiar facts that are not comparable to those in the present case. Besides, that case did not involve the exercise of powers u/s 220 (2A) of the IT Act. This Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters. Considering the limited scope of judicial review, no case is made to interfere with the impugned order. All three preconditions must coexist before a waiver order can be made u/s 220 (2A) of the IT Act. No merit in this Petition. - M.S. SONAK JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioners: Mr. P J Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal i/by Mr. Sudhakar G Lakhani,. For the Respondents: Mr Suresh Kumar,. JUDGMENT (PER M. S. SONAK, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner, and after his demise, the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner challenge order dated 28 February 2020 (Exhibit J ) made by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I rejecting the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s financial position at some earlier point in time. 8. Mr Pardiwala submitted that the Petitioner s stand regarding the acquisition and disposal of seized assets was consistent. He also submitted that the Petitioner's failure to file the wealth tax returns or pay the wealth tax should not have been considered because, by law, the Petitioner was not required to file any wealth tax. 9. Mr Pardiwala submitted that no additions were made to the Petitioner's declared income on the alleged income referred to in the impugned order at any stage. Having not made addition, the Chief Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the Petitioner's application for waiver on the grounds contained in the impugned order dated 28 February 2020. 10. Mr Pardiwala submitted that the Chief Commissioner did not apply the correct parameters for considering an application under Section 220 (2A) of the IT Act. In any event, the findings and observations made by the Chief Commissioner are perverse. He submitted that the factum of the Petitioner's age and that he was suffering from multiple health ailments was not adequately considered by the Chief Commissioner. 11. Mr Pardiwala relied on Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him: Provided that the order accepting or rejecting the application of the assessee, either in full or in part, shall be passed within a period of twelve months from the end of the month in which the application is received: Provided further that no order rejecting the application, either in full or in part, shall be passed unless the assessee has been given an opportunity of being heard: Provided also 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. (2B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where interest is charged under sub-section (1A) of section 201 on the amount of tax specified in the intimation issued under sub-section (1) of section 200A for any period, then, no interest shall be charged under sub-section (2) on the same amount for the same period. 18. The above sub-section provides three conditions that must be fulfilled before the interest demanded on the tax due can be waived. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that all these conditions must be satisfied in B. M. Malani vs. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the appeals instituted by the Petitioner and requested the AO not to dispose of the Petitioner's movable assets until the appeals instituted by the Petitioner were disposed of. This communication of the Petitioner is at Exhibit B-2 (pages 44 and 45 of the Petition). 25. Again, by communication dated 10 February 2015 (Exhibit B-3 at pages 47 to 49) the Petitioner once again informed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax that since his matters were before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), the seized movable assets may be treated as security towards my tax dues and keep the matter in abeyance till I get the final order from Honorable I.T.A.T. 26. By further communication dated 13 March 2015 (Exhibit B-4 on pages 50 to 52), the Petitioner once again made the same request about keeping his movable assets as security towards his tax dues and to keep the matter in abeyance until the I.T.A.T. disposes of the proceedings. 27. Thus, it is not as if the Petitioner, at any stage, issued clear instructions regarding the seized gold. The instructions were conflicting and contradictory. Therefore, it is incorrect to portray a case in which the gold and jewellery seized in 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner to show that there was any fall in the prices of gold bars or diamond jewellery. The Chief Commissioner has noted an appreciation for the value of gold bars and diamond jewellery at a very fast pace. Hence, the Petitioner benefited from this appreciation. Thus, based on the material on record, the finding of the Chief Commissioner about the Petitioner not fulfilling the second condition prescribed under Section 220 (2A) of the IT Act warrants no interference. 34. The third condition requires that the assessee cooperate in any inquiry related to the assessment or any proceedings to recover any amount due from him. 35. Though there could be two opinions on this, the impugned order does refer to the inconsistent stands adopted by the Petitioner from time to time. At one stage, the assessee pleaded with the departmental authorities not to sell the diamond jewellery, claiming that the same was a part of Streedhan though the CBDT guidelines had specified that diamond jewellery could not be treated as Streedhan . Besides, about 500 grams of gold jewellery for each of the family members of the Petitioner s family had not been seized on the ground that the same must have been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
