TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ia) of the IT Act. Therefore, such additions to the returned income cannot be said to have arisen or accrued after the due date of payment of first or subsequent instalment of advance tax which was neither anticipated nor was in contemplation of the assessee and therefore in such circumstances, levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C was automatic and the same cannot be waived. - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No. 36428/2016 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - Vineet Kothari, J. For the Petitioner : Sri. Mallaharao, Adv. for Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Adv ORDER The petitioner, M/s Gaonkar Mines has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCIT), Panjim, Goa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or waiver of interest issued by the Board in notification in F.No.400/129/2002-IT(B) dated 26.06.2006 is reproduced below - 2. The class of incomes or class of cases in which the reduction or waiver of interest under section 234A or section 234B or, as the case may be, section 234C can be considered, are as follows: (a) Where during the course of proceedings for search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, or otherwise, the books of account and other incriminating documents have been seized, and the assessee has been unable to furnish the return of income for the previous year, during which the action under section 132 has taken place, within the time specified in this behalf, and the Chief Commissioner/ Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be deemed to have satisfied the conditions of Clause 2(b) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular dated 26.6.2006, quoted above. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner - assessee, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the respondent Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. It is clearly and categorically held that he has no discretion under the CBDT Instructions or Circular dated 26.6.2006 inasmuch as the petitioner during the contemporary period itself very well knew that non- deduction/remittance would be disallowable for want of deduction of tax at source under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. Therefore, such additions to the returned income cannot be said to hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
