TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he writ petition is against the order of the Settlement Commission dated 16.7.2002, rejecting the plea for waiver of interest chargeable under Sections 234-A, 234-B and 234-C, relating to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97, on the view that the conditions stipulated in the notification of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (C.B.D.T.) dated 23.5.1996 were not attracted. 2. The petitioner preferred an application before the Settlement Commission under Section 245-C of the Income Tax Act. The case was processed and ultimately, the Settlement Commission passed an order on 16.7.2002, fixing the total income at Rs.27,75,783/-. On the question of payment of interest chargeable under Sections 139(8), 215 and 217 of the Income Tax Act for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also stated that the conditions which favoured the granting of waiver at 50% for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89 equally applied to the other half also. In short, he submitted that the first respondent should have favourably considered the petition to grant the relief for the entirety of the interest chargeable under Sections 139(8), 215 and 217 of the Act. He further pointed out that the Settlement Commission had not given any reason while restricting the waiver to 50%. Consequently, placing reliance on the decision reported in CIT v. Smt.G.A. Samanthakamani [2003] 259 ITR 215 (Mad) he stated that the order of the Settlement Commission was not sustainable in law. He also stated that the petitioner moved an application before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter admission was passed on 16.7.2002. The petitioner returned additional income originally at Rs.10,33,294/- and subsequently revised it, showing an enhanced income at Rs.13,04,845/- . Ultimately, the first respondent fixed the total taxable income at 27,75,783/-. The petitioner states that the additions made by the Settlement Commission were not anticipated; that there was an estimation of cost of construction of the residential property. He submitted that the estimation or addition on the total income was purely on the ground of the rejection of the explanation or on estimate. In the circumstances, he submitted that the case merited a waiver of interest under Sections 234-A, 234-B and 234-C. 6 . Learned counsel pointed out that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
