9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax under section 12A(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated July 26, 1993, while dealing with the matter pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89 held that the respondent is a charitable trust and allowed the exemption under section 11 of the Act. Be that as it may, the respondent had filed returns of income by declaring nil income for the assessment year 1994-95 onwards till 1997-98 claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. When things stood thus, this court while deciding the matter pertaining to some other parties in its judgment in the case of CIT v. I. T. I. Employees Death and Superannuation Relief Fund reported in [1998] 234 ITR 308 (Karn) held that the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent had filed a writ petition before the learned single judge of this court in W. P. No. 11966 of 2006. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned single judge on September 18, 2007. The learned single judge has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order passed by the first appellant holding that when the respondent has got exemption under section 11 of the Act for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 he could not pay the taxes in advance and, therefore, waiver of interest could have been allowed by the first appellant and the respondent cannot be made to pay the interest without any fault of it and accordingly, quashed the impugned order therein. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax is not the competent authority if the case of the respondent does not fall within the said categories and the only option open for it is to file necessary application before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for waiver of interest. Therefore, he submitted that, the order impugned passed by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent, inter alia, substantiated the order passed by the learned single judge. He submitted that the learned single judge after due consideration of the records available on file has passed the said order and, therefore, interference by this court does not call for. 5. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest in pursuance of the circular-cum-notification dated May 23, 1996, if the request of the respondent falls within category 2(a) to (e). But, in the instant case, the case of the respondent does not fall under clause 2(d) of the said circular dated May 23, 1996. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered or brought to the notice of the learned single judge during the submissions by the respective counsel. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order impugned passed by the learned single judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. 7. The impugned order dated September 18, 2007, passed by the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
