TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor General of Income Tax (Exemptions) right in rejecting the application for waiver of interest. - 468 of 2008 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 25-6-2010 - N. K. PATIL and MRS. B. V. NAGARATHNA JJ. June 25, 2010 . M.V. Seshachala for the appellants. S. Parthasarathy and H. Mallaha Rao for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. N. K. Patil J.-This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated September 18, 2007 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 11966 of 2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are : the respondent is an association and obtained registration from the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 12A(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an application under section 119(2)(a) of the Act praying for waiver of interest in respect of the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The said application had come up for consideration before the Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions), who in turn, has rejected the same holding that the case of the respondent does not fall under clause 2(d) of the circular-cum-notification dated May 23, 1996, and, therefore, he is not the competent authority to consider the said request. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the first appellant herein, the respondent had filed a writ petition before the learned single judge of this court in W. P. No. 11966 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apex court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the apex court has observed that, the Circular dated May 23, 1996, has empowered that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Director General of Income-tax may waive or reduce interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in the class of cases or class of incomes specified in clause 2 of the said order for the period and on conditions which are enumerated therein and affirmed the same. Therefore, he submitted that, as per the circular-cum-notification dated May 23, 1996, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and the Director General of Income-tax is not the competent authority if the case of the respondent does not fall within the said cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause, on the ground that the respondent has not brought any High Court or apex court order holding that it is entitled for the waiver of interest. But the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal has held that it is entitled for the said benefits and, therefore, the Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions) has got jurisdiction to consider the said request. It is clear from the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 that, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and the Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions) has got jurisdiction to waive or reduce the interest in pursuance of the circular-cum-notification dated May 23, 1996, if the request of the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
