TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on his father and his brother for not paying the tax in time. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable reason shown by the petitioner, the 1st respondent had rightly rejected the petition. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is just and proper. - Decided against assessee - W.P.No.11386 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2016 - MR. M.DURAISWAMY, J For the Petitioner: Mr.Muthappan For the Respondents : Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 31.03.2004 for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96 and to quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to waive t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 234A, B and C of the Act. The 1st respondent also rejected the application for waiver of interest on the ground that he was not empowered to grant waiver. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied upon the unreported judgment dated 27.02.2007 made in W.P.No.19996 of 2003 [M/s.N.Haridas and Co., 4/2, Mandapan Cross Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10] wherein a Division Bench of this Court had set aside the impugned order by which the respondent Income Tax Department refused to grant waiver of interest. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that under Notification F.No.400/234/95-IT(B) dated 23rd May 1996 where a return of income could not be filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aive the interest, which was rightly imposed by the 2nd respondent. In the absence of any acceptable reason given by the petitioner, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the Managing Partner of the Firm fell ill and subsequently, he died due to brain cancer and hence, the petitioner Firm could not pay the tax as demanded. In the case on hand, the petitioner has thrown the blame on his father and his brother for not paying the tax in time. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable reason shown by the petitioner, the 1st respondent had rightly rejected the petition. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is just and proper. 8.I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
