TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner. Thus, the manner in which the second respondent has approached the issue is in-correct. With regard to financial difficulty, the second respondent would state that the petitioner has a fixed deposit of a sum of ₹ 4.4 Crores and they also earned interest income and the said fixed deposit is maintained specifically in connection with Kanniyakumari ferry service, which is a matter of national importance and the fixed deposit has to be maintained for the purpose of acquiring the ferry and cannot be diverted for any other purpose. Thus, the observation with regard to financial condition of the petitioner is also factually in-correct. Thus, for the above reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has fulfilled all the three conditions contained under Section 220(2A) of the Act and thus, entitled for waiver of interest. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is seen that at the time, when the writ petition was allowed, an order of interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the amount demanded within a period of eight weeks. This condition has been complied with by the petitioner. In the light o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities, which were rejected. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner prayed for stay of recovery and the same was granted till the disposal of appeal by the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Tribunal by a common order dated 23.11.2001, in ITA Nos.319, 320, 321 (MDS) of 2001, dismissed the appeals. Immediately, on dismissal of the appeals, the respondent-Department issued a notice under Section 226(3) of the Act, attaching the petitioner's bank account and the accounts of the petitioner with the TamilNadu Electricity Board. Aggrieved by such action, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, in which, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take up the stay petition for consideration and untill then, protected the petitioner from recovery. As against the order passed by the ITAT, the petitioner preferred Tax Case (Appeals) before this Court in TCA Nos.99 to 101 of 2002. After the disposal of the writ petition, the Bank accounts of the petitioner were attached and steps were taken for recovery by issuance of notice under Section 133(6) of the Act and summons was also issued under Section 131 of the Act to furnish the list of debtors, list of persons to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings and initially remitted a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- as directed by the ITAT, during the pendency of the appeal. Subsequently, they unconditionally agreed before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, for paying the entire tax liability after adjusting the refunds, in instalments and they strictly adhered to the intsalment schedule. Therefore, the petitioner contended that directing the petitioner to pay interest would cause genuine hardship to them. Default in payment of interest was due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and that the petitioner has co-operated in all enquires related to the assessment or any other proceedings. With these submissions, the petitioner sought for waiver of the amount of interest payable by him under section 220(2) of the Act. This application has been rejected by order dated 25.02.2004, which is impugned in this writ petition. 6. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner satisfies the condition prescribed under Section 220(2A) of the Act. The said provision reads as follows:- Section 220 (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 21.03.2006, that is, in respect of the acquisition of the dreger for the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner s stand was accepted. However, the orders passed by the ITAT in respect of two other assessment orders viz., 1986-87 1987-88 were affirmed. The second respondent would state that the petitioner did not co-operate in the proceedings and this conclusion is arrived at solely on the ground that the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Act. The explanation given by the petitioner was that because they were reeling under financial loss, they were unable to meet the demand and appeal having been preferred as against the order of the ITAT, they requested for an interim protection. Infact, ITAT had granted an order of interim stay till the disposal of the appeal subject to certain conditions, which the petitioner had complied with. Therefore, when notice under Section 226(3) of the Act was issued it was well open to the petitioner to safeguard the interest of the company and for which purpose, they have approached the Court of law. Merely because the petitioner had approached the Court of law, they should not be penalised or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
