9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming for the benefit of the Circular bearing F.No.400/234/95-IT(B) dated 23.05.1996, which has been issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 119 (2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The case of the petitioner is that, in respect of the assessment year 1995 -96, return was filed, declaring a total income of Rs.66,540/- (Rupees Sixty six thousand five hundred and forty only), as borne by Ext.P1 showing the tax paid under Section 140A as Rs.9,312/- (Rupees Nine thousand three hundred and twelve only). However, Ext.P2 assessment order came to be passed on 29.03.2000, relying on some property deal pursued by the petitioner in association with one K.P.Ahamed Kutty, Timber Merchant at Calicut. The income generated from the said deal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be assailed, pointing out that, the only reason for extending the benefit to Mr.K.P.Ahamed Kutty, vide Ext.P6, is apparently based on the earlier Circular, which is stated as super-ceded, by the Circular dated 26.06.2006. It is pointed out by the Learned counsel that, absolutely no distinction/difference is there between these two Circulars, but for the fact that Sub clause (e) to Clause 2 of 1996 Circular came to be incorporated as Sub clause (d) to clause 2 of 2006 Circular and that's all. 4. Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the eligibility to have waiver of interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C and reliance sought to be pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding in Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Jagjit Singh and another respondent reported in 1995 AIR Supreme Court 705 and so also in Gursharan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others in (1996) 2 SCC 459. The question to be considered is, whether the correct legal and factual position has been considered by the concerned authority or not. 6. In the statement filed by the respondents it is contended in paragraph 7, that the benefit conferred to Mr.K.P.Ahamed Kutty, vide Ext.P6 is on the basis of the earlier Circular, i.e., Circular dated 23.05.1996, which came to be super- ceded by the time Ext.P4 order was passed in the case of the petitioner. Since no substantial difference is brought to the notice of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
