TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of the Act was merely $0.004 billion (approx). In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the CIT that no ‘genuine hardship’ can be said to have been caused to the Petitioner cannot be said to be an erroneous exercise of discretion by the CIT. It was a plausible view to take and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. - W.P.(C) 5423/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing counsel. O R D E R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ( PE ) of POC US carrying on research activity in India. 4. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the aforementioned assessment order was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] by deleting 50% of the addition made by the AO on account of estimated attribution of income holding inter alia that only that much profit could be attributed to the PE which was derived from the assets and activities of the PE in India. 5. In the further appeal filed by the Petitioner, the Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ITAT ) for the AYs 1997-98 to 2001-02 held by its orders dated 30th November 2009 and 24th December 2009 that only 10% of income was, therefore, to be treated as agricultural income and the balance was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years corresponding to the Indian assessment years under consideration. 8. On 26th December 2011, the Petitioner filed an application before the CIT under Section 220 (2A) of the Act for waiver of interest levied under Section 220 (2) of the Act. This was followed by a letter dated 27th April 2012 wherein the Petitioner reiterated its request. 9. By the impugned order dated 6th May 2016, the CIT dismissed the aforementioned application on the ground that no genuine hardship had been caused to the Petitioner. 10. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned Senior standing counsel for the Respondent. 11. Mr. Vohra first submitted that the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of Understanding between India and USA regarding suspension of collection during the course of pendency of the MAP, the collection of outstanding taxes in case of taxpayers, who were residents of USA and whose request under the MAP was under consideration of the Competent Authorities, shall be kept in abeyance subject to the Assessee furnishing a bank guarantee of an amount equal to the amount of tax under dispute and interest accruing thereon as per the provisions of the Act. 13. Mr. Vohra pointed out that all the three conditions under Section 220 (2A) of the Act stood satisfied in the present case, viz., (i) that the payment of interest under Section 220 (2) of the Act would cause genuine hardship; (ii) the default in the payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards interest under Section 220 (2A) of the Act should cause the Assessee genuine hardship (ii) default in the payment of the amount should be due to circumstances beyond the control of the Assessee; and (iii) the Assessee should have cooperated in the proceedings for recovery of the amount. 16. What was urged before the CIT and was reiterated by Mr. Vohra in this Court was that interest under Section 220 (2) of the Act was paid besides incurring costs on maintaining a bank guarantee was more than 1.5 times of the tax amount. As rightly noted by the CIT, the mere fact that the interest was 1.5 times the tax by itself does not have any relevance for determining whether the Assessee was suffering from any genuine hardship . 17. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
