9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents : Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior standing counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior standing counsel. ORDER 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 20th March 2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central-1), New Delhi ['CIT'] rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner, Prakash Aggarwal, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') against the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking inspection of records was attributable to the Assessee and in any event, return on estimate basis could have been filed. 3. Subsequently, the AO had imposed penalty a sum of Rs. 54,480 under Section 271 (1) (a) of the Act. The Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)']. This appeal came to be allowed by the CIT (A) on 6th/26th December 1990 deleti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the CIT on 9th October 2001. The CIT was of the view that the delay of more than 10 years in approaching the AO was not sufficiently explained. The petition was rejected by the CIT on 20th March 2002. Thereafter the present petition was filed. 6. The only ground urged by Mr. Shashwat Bajpai, learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that there is no time limit under Rule 117 A of the Rules for f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) dated 6th/26th December 1990 before again approaching the AO under Rule 117 A for waiver of interest. While Rule 117 A does not expressly bar a second application and does not prescribe any limitation, the Petitioner has no satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay in filing the fresh application. The pendency of other proceedings at various fora does not constitute a sufficient jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T (A) constituted a fresh cause of action for seeking waiver of interest, the delay of more than 9 years in filing the second application under Rule 117 A was not sufficiently explained. 10. In the circumstances, the Court is unable to discern any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT which warrants interference. 11. The writ petition and the pending application are dismissed with no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
